Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-1
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This Section of the EIR addresses other environmental considerations and topics mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These topics include Cumulative Impacts, Alternatives to the Project, Growth Inducement, Significant Environmental Effects of the Project, and Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes.
5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify any significant cumulative impacts associated with a project [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)]. When cumulative impacts are not deemed potentially significant, the document should explain the basis for that conclusion. Cumulative impacts are “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355]. Thus, a legally adequate cumulative impact analysis is an analysis of a given project viewed over time and with other related past, present, and foreseeable probable future projects, whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the Project considered here.
CEQA notes that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(b)]. Only those projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the Project under consideration require evaluation. CEQA does not require as much detail in the analysis of cumulative environmental impacts as must be provided for the Project alone. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-2
The CEQA Guidelines identify two basic methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list-of-projects methodology, and the summary-of-projections methodology. Because each environmental resource is affected by its surroundings in different manners, either of the two methodologies, or a combination of both, may be applied to the analysis of cumulative impacts to each resource. For example, because the approval and construction elements of development typically takes at least one to two years, the list-of-projects method is likely to provide a more accurate projection of growth in the near term. This method may overstate potential cumulative impacts because the considered list-of-projects may include proposals that would never be developed.
Because development proposals are rarely publicly known until within five years of the expected development, the summary-of-projections method provides a more accurate projection of growth over the long term. This method may not accurately predict growth in any given year but aggregates various growth trends over the long term.
For each topical discussion, the cumulative geographic context is identified. This in turn relates to the amount and type of growth within the geographic area under consideration.
The manner in which each resource may be affected also dictates the geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis.
5.1.1 DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Unless otherwise noted herein, the cumulative impact analysis ultimately evaluates effects of the Project within the context of anticipated buildout of the City of Moreno Valley (City) as envisioned under the City General Plan. Specific cumulative projects have also been identified where this information may be different, is more detailed than that provided within the General Plan or applicable regional plans, or where such specific information otherwise benefits the cumulative impact analyses. Potential cumulative impacts for each of the EIR’s environmental topics are discussed below and include:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources;
• Energy;
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-3
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Global Climate Change; • Land Use and Planning;
• Noise; and
• Transportation.
Under other environmental topics, Project impacts have been previously determined through the Initial Study process not to be potentially significant. No further substantive analysis is provided under these topics, which include:
Aesthetics
• Potential to have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located.
• Potential to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
• Potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. • Potential to conflict with existing agricultural zoning, agricultural use or with land subject to a Williamson Act contract or land within a Riverside County Agricultural Preserve.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-4
• Potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govt. Code section 51104(g)).
• Potential to result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. • Potential to involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Air Quality
• Potential to result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Biological Resources
• Potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • Potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Cultural Resources
• Potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Geology and Soils
• Potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving earthquake fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-5
• Potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. • Potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. • Potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. • Potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • Potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
• Potential to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • If located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport – potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-6
• Potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires Hydrology and Water Quality
• Potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. • Potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o Impede or redirect flood flows.
• If located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone – potential to risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
• Potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-7
Land Use and Planning
• Potential to physically divide an established community.
Mineral Resources
• Potential to result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the state. • Potential to result in loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Noise
• If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip – potential to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from public airport or public use airport operations.
Population and Housing
• Potential to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
• Potential to displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Public Services
• Potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered:
o Fire protection facilities;
o Police protection facilities;
o School facilities;
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-8
o Park facilities; or
o “Other” public facilities.
Recreation
• Potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
• Potential to include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Utilities and Service Systems
• Potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Potential to result in or be subject to insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
• Potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. • Potential to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• Potential to conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-9
Wildfire
• Potential to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Potential to exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors.
• Potential to require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
• Potential to expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Please refer also to EIR Section 1.8, Impacts Not Found to be Potentially Significant.
5.1.1.1 Cumulative Impacts Related to Land Use and Planning The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative land use and planning issues includes areas that are currently, or are anticipated to be, subject to provisions of the City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and/or Special Planning Documents (e.g., Specific Plans).
General Plan and Zoning Considerations
General Plan
The existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project site is “Commercial.” To allow for the Project light industrial uses and maintain consistency between the site’s Specific Plan Land Use and General Plan Land Use designations, the Project proposes a General Plan Land Use Amendment. The proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment would redesignate the Project site General Plan Land Use from “Commercial” to © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-10
“Business Park/Light Industrial.”1 The Project would be allowed under the proposed Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. More specifically, as described in the General Plan, “[t]he primary purpose of areas designated Business Park/Industrial is to provide for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing and distribution, as well as office and support commercial activities. The zoning regulations shall identify the particular uses permitted on each parcel of land.
Development intensity should not exceed a Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 1.00 and the average floor area ratio should be significantly less . . .” (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, p. 2-14).
The Project will include approximately 220,390 square feet of light industrial uses within an approximately 9.98-acre (434,730 square feet) Project Site – yielding an FAR of approximately 0.51. The Project’s light industrial uses are consistent with uses allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project’s FAR (0.51) is consistent with and would not exceed the General Plan FAR (1.0) established for the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation.
Zoning
Current zoning of the Project site and abutting properties to the south and east is established under Specific Plan No. 205 (SP No. 205), Moreno Valley Festival Specific Plan. As proposed under the Project, the Specific Plan Land Use designation for the Project site would be changed from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.” The Project would not otherwise affect Specific Plan No. 205 land use designations. 1 In May 2024, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Writ (“Writ”) directing that the City set aside certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR due to inadequacies identified in the Final Program EIR as to the issues of baseline greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), air quality, and energy use and to set aside approval of the 2040 General Plan and related Zoning Amendments. This had the effect of reviving the City’s 2006 General Plan and associated zoning which applies to the Project.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-11
Summary
The Project proposed land use amendments would achieve land use designations that best represent the development and land use activities contemplated by the Project.
When a project includes an amendment to the applicable land use designation, inconsistency with the existing designation is an element of the project itself, which then requires a legislative policy decision of the agency. The request and subsequent approval of a change in designation in this regard does not signify a potential environmental effect.
Environmental impacts of the Project’s proposed land use amendments would therefore be less-than-significant.
The Project land uses, development concepts, and operations would conform to all governing land use plans (as amended). The Project concepts conform to regulations and standards established by the City. The City would ensure compliance of the Project final designs with applicable regulations and standards through established design and development review processes.2
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct relevant local and regional plans.
Based on the preceding, the Project’s contributions to potential cumulative land use and planning impacts are therefore not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project would be less-than-significant.
5.1.1.2 Cumulative Impacts Related to Transportation
The Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment cumulative impact area coincides with relevant Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs).
Cumulative VMT Impacts
As summarized at EIR Section 4.2, Transportation, the Project VMT per employee impact is substantiated to be less-than-significant under Base Year and Cumulative Year 2 See: https://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/cdd/documents/approval-process.html © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-12
conditions. The Project’s cumulative VMT impact is therefore considered less-thansignificant.
Other Transportation Topics
• Potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); and
• Potential to result in inadequate emergency access.
Under the above-listed topics, as discussed at EIR Section 4.2, Transportation, Project impacts would be less-than-significant. Project contributions to cumulatively significant impacts would be similarly less-than-significant.
5.1.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Related to Air Quality
The cumulative impact area for air quality considerations is generally defined by the encompassing Air Basin and boundaries of the jurisdictional air quality management agency. In this case, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), respectively. Project air pollutant emissions within the context of SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds provide an indicator of potential cumulative impacts in the Basin. Due to the defining geographic and meteorological characteristics of the Basin, criteria pollutant emissions that could cumulatively impact air quality would be, for practical purposes, restricted to the Basin. Accordingly, the geographic area encompassed by the Basin is the appropriate limit for the cumulative Air Quality analysis.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-13
Construction-source Emissions Air Quality Impacts
Regional Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and would be lessthan-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative construction-source emissions regional air quality impacts would be less-than-significant.
Localized Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Project construction-source air quality emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) and would therefore be less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-thansignificant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative construction-source emissions localized air quality impacts would be lessthan-significant.
Nonattainment Impacts
The Project is located within ozone and PM10/PM2.5 nonattainment areas (NOx is a precursor to ozone and PM10/PM2.5). As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the encompassing region is nonattainment.
Project-level and cumulative impacts would therefore be less-than-significant. Project cumulative construction-source emissions nonattainment impacts would be less-thansignificant.
AQMP Consistency Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not exceed any applicable thresholds and would therefore be less-thansignificant. On this basis, the potential for the Project construction-source emissions to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP would be less-than-significant. Per © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-14
SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative construction-source emissions AQMP consistency impacts would be less-than-significant.
Operational-Source Emissions Air Quality Impacts
Regional Impacts
The Project AQIA and the discussions at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, substantiate that the Project operational-source air quality impacts would be less-than-significant. The Project would incorporate design features including contemporary energy-efficient technologies and operational programs and would be required to comply with SCAQMD emissions reductions measures and rules. These measures would further reduce already less-thansignificant Project operational-source air pollutant emissions. Per SCAQMD criteria, lessthan-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative operational-source emissions regional air quality impacts would be less-thansignificant.
Localized Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Project operational-source air quality emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) and would therefore be less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-thansignificant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative operational-source emissions localized air quality impacts would be lessthan-significant.
Nonattainment Impacts
The Project is located within ozone and PM10/PM2.5 nonattainment areas (NOx is a precursor to ozone and PM10/PM2.5). As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and summarized here, Project operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the encompassing region © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-15
is nonattainment. Project cumulative operational-source emissions nonattainment impacts would be less-than-significant.
AQMP Consistency Impacts
Project operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds.
Moreover, the Project’s proposed land use amendments would likely reduce emissions when compared to emissions assumptions reflected in the AQMP. Project operationalsource emissions would not otherwise be inconsistent with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project cumulative operational-source emissions AQMP consistency impacts would be less-than-significant.
Health Risk Impacts and Potential Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Construction-Source Emissions
Project construction activities would yield a total maximum increased Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)-source cancer risk exposure of 6.04 incidents per million population.
The applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for Project-level TAC-source cancer risk impacts is 10 incidents per million population. The 6.04 incidents per million population increment resulting from Project construction activities is therefore less-than-significant.
Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative construction-source emissions cancer risk impacts would be less-than-significant.
The maximum non-cancer risk from Project construction activities would total 0.02 and would not exceed the SCAQMD Hazard Index of 1.0. The non-cancer risk exposure resulting from the Project construction activities is therefore less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative construction-source emissions non-cancer risk impacts would be less-than-significant.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-16
Operational-Source Emissions
Project operations would yield a total maximum increased TAC-source cancer risk exposure of 0.79 incidents per million population. The applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for Project-level TAC-source cancer risk impacts is 10 incidents per million population. The 0.79 incidents per million population increment resulting from the Project operations is therefore less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-thansignificant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. Project cumulative operational-source emissions cancer risk impacts would be less-thansignificant.
The maximum non-cancer risk from Project operations activities would total <0.01 and would not exceed the SCAQMD Hazard Index of 1.0. The non-cancer risk exposure resulting from Project operations is therefore less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable.
Project cumulative operational-source emissions non-cancer risk impacts would be lessthan-significant.
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and summarized here, all other air pollutant emissions generated by the Project would not exceed applicable thresholds and would therefore be less-than-significant at the Project level. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-thansignificant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable.
Based on the preceding, TAC health risk impacts of the Project are not cumulatively considerable, and the Project cumulative TAC health risk impacts would be less-thansignificant. Additionally, impacts of other emissions generated by the Project are not cumulatively considerable, and would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
5.1.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Related to GHG Emissions/Global Climate Change CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)). The Project Greenhouse Gas (GHG) © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-17
Analysis (EIR Appendix E) is by nature a cumulative analysis. Because GHG emissions and climate change are a global issue, any approved project regardless of its location has the potential to contribute to a cumulative global accumulation of GHG emissions. The geographic context of the cumulative contributions to GHGs and climate change is worldwide. Practically however, lead agencies and responsible agencies are only able to regulate GHG emissions within their respective jurisdictions. Accordingly, for the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impact area for GHG/Global Climate Change considerations is the City and the encompassing SCAQMD jurisdictional area.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines direction, the Project GHG Analysis and this EIR evaluate Project GHG emissions under the following topical headings:
• Potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and • Potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The City has further determined that each of the above thresholds establishes a separate and independent basis upon which to substantiate the significance of the Project’s potential GHG emissions impact. Project impacts within the context of the above threshold considerations are evaluated in the following discussions.
As discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that may directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment. In this respect, the Project’s potential to contribute considerably (either individually or cumulatively) to global climate change impacts through GHG emissions is therefore considered less-than-significant.
As also discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts in this © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-18
respect are therefore determined to be less-than-significant as mitigated and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize GHG emissions and demonstrate compliance with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
5.1.1.5 Cumulative Impacts Related to Energy
Primary natural gas and electricity providers for the Project facilities would be:
• Southern California Gas Company, SoCalGas (natural gas); and • Southern California Edison, SCE (electricity).
The geographic scope of cumulative energy impacts is generally limited to the abovenoted energy provider service area(s). The analysis at EIR Section 4.5, Energy, substantiates that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. These plans and policies address developmentlevel and cumulative impacts to energy resources. Moreover, as noted at DEIR Section
3.0, Project Description, the Project would be designed and constructed in a manner that, at a minimum, would achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Silver” equivalency.
The Project energy efficient designs, in combination with Project consistency with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency, demonstrates that the Project cumulative energy impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be less-than-significant.
Based on the preceding, energy impacts of the Project are not cumulatively considerable, and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be less-than-significant. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-19
5.1.1.6 Cumulative Impacts Related to Noise
The cumulative impact area for noise considerations comprises surrounding properties that could receive Project-generated noise (either construction-source or operationalsource) and would also include roadway corridors affected by Project-related traffic and associated vehicular noise. Potential noise impacts of the Project are discussed at EIR Section 4.6, Noise, and EIR Appendix G.
Construction-Source Noise
As discussed at EIR Section 4.6, Noise, Project construction-source noise would not exceed applicable thresholds and would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources. Based on the preceding, the potential for Project construction-source noise to result in or cause cumulatively significant impacts is considered less-than-significant.
Operational Noise-Area Sources
As discussed at EIR Section 4.6, Noise, Project operational noise from area sources would not exceed applicable thresholds. Noise levels resulting from Project operations would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources.
Based on the preceding, the potential for Project operational area-source noise to result in or cause cumulatively significant impacts is considered less-than-significant.
5.1.1.7 Cumulative Impacts Related to Biological Resources The cumulative impact areas for biological resources are generally defined by available habitat, species’ range(s), physical constraints, and other limiting factors as discussed within the Project Biological Resources Assessment, EIR Appendix H.
As discussed at EIR Section 4.7, Biological Resources, mitigation proposed in the EIR reduces potential impacts to wildlife species to levels that would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation of Project-specific biological resources impacts would also reduce the Project’s potential incremental contributions to cumulative biological resources impacts within the region. The Project would have no potentially significant effects on other biological © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-20
resources. These Project impacts would be individually and cumulatively less-thansignificant.
Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts in regard to biological resources is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant.
5.1.1.8 Cumulative Impacts Related to Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
The cumulative impact area for prehistoric, archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources generally includes the County and surrounding areas. Impacts to any cultural resources or tribal cultural resources within this area would be site-specific. In the event that potentially significant cultural or tribal resources are encountered at any development sites within the cumulative impact area, specific mitigation measures would be applied before construction activities could proceed. Potential impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are determined to be less-than-significant as mitigated. In this regard, mitigation proposed for the Project (i.e., monitoring of construction activities; and recordation, cataloguing, and curation of any potentially significant cultural resources) is typical of, and consistent with, mitigation required for construction within urban and suburban areas throughout the County and surrounding region.
Based on the preceding, cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of the Project are not cumulatively considerable and the Project cumulative cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts would be less-than-significant.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5.2.1 Alternatives Overview
Consistent with provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR evaluates alternatives to the Project that would lessen its significant environmental effects while allowing for © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-21
attainment of the basic Project Objectives. It is noted here that the Project would not result in any significant environmental effects.
As required under CEQA, a “No Project” alternative has been evaluated. Other alternatives to the Project considered herein provide context for the Project environmental impacts relative to other development that could feasibly be implemented at the subject site. Alternatives considered are listed below:
• No Project Alternatives (No Build Scenario, and Commercial Development Scenario);
• Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Alternatives considered and rejected include:
• Alternative Sites.
5.2.2 Description of Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project that are considered in this analysis are described below.
5.2.2.1 No Project Alternative
Overview
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require that an EIR include evaluation of a No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative should make a reasoned assessment as to future disposition of the subject site should the Project under consideration not be developed.
In this latter regard, the CEQA Guidelines state in pertinent part:
“If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the “no project” alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-22
consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this “no project” consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means “no build” wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B)).
Within this analysis, two No Project Scenarios are considered – “No Build” and “Commercial Development Scenario.”
No Project Alternative: No Build Scenario
The No Project Alternative: No Build Scenario assumes the site remains in its current undeveloped condition. If a No Build Scenario were maintained, its comparative environmental impacts would replicate the existing conditions discussions for each of the environmental topics evaluated in this EIR; and comparative impacts of the Project would be as presented under each of the EIR environmental topics.
No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario The No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario assumes development of the subject site with a building area equal to that of the Project (220,390 total square feet).
The No Project Alternative: Commercial Uses Development Scenario would comprise commercial uses only, rather than the light industrial uses assumed under the Project.
5.2.2.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Overview
The Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative considered in this EIR would diminish the Project’s already lessthan-significant impacts. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-23
For illustrative purposes, the Reduced Intensity Alternative considers a development scenario representing a 25 percent reduction in development that would otherwise result from the Project. When compared to the Project scope (220,390 square feet), the Reduced Intensity Alternative would realize approximately 165,293 square feet of light industrial uses. All other aspects of the Reduced Intensity Alternative (building configuration, allocation of internal space, opening year, hours/days of operation, all operations internal to the building) would be consistent with the Project.
5.2.2.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Alternative Sites Considered and Rejected
As stated at CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 (f)(1)(2)(A), the “key question and first step in [the] analysis [of alternative locations] is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.
Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 (f) (1) also provides that when considering the feasibility of potential alternative sites, the factors that may be taken into account include: “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). None of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.”
As noted previously, the Project would not result in any significant environmental effects.
Per CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 (f)(1)(2)(A) . . . “[o]nly locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” Because the Project would not result in any significant environmental effects, there is no requirement for identification of, or analysis of, an Alternative Site.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-24
5.2.3 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
For each environmental topic addressed in the EIR, environmental impacts associated with each of the considered Alternatives are described relative to impacts of the Project.
Comparative attainment of the Project Objectives under each Alternative is summarized at Table 5.2-5. At the conclusion of these discussions, Table 5.2-6 compares relative impacts of the considered Alternatives.
5.2.3.1 Comparative Land Use and Planning Impacts
PROJECT
As substantiated at EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, all Project land use and planning impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under the No Build Scenario, no changes in land use or development would occur.
Discretionary actions, land use changes, and new development otherwise resulting from the Project would not occur. Less-than-significant land use and planning impacts resulting from the Project would be diminished under this Alternative.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Under the Commercial Development Scenario, no changes in land use would be required.
The site would be developed with commercial uses allowed under the existing General Plan and the existing Specific Plan No. 205. Discretionary actions and land use changes otherwise resulting from the Project would not occur. Less-than-significant land use and planning impacts resulting from the Project would be diminished under this Alternative.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the scope of light industrial development would be reduced when compared to the Project. As with the Project, to allow for proposed light industrial uses, amendment of the City General Plan (Land Use Element) and adoption of a Specific Plan Amendment would be required under this Alternative. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-25
Less-than-significant land use and planning impacts resulting from the Project and this Alternative would be similar.
5.2.3.2 Comparative Transportation Impacts
PROJECT
VMT Impacts
As substantiated at EIR Section 4.2, Transportation, Project VMT impacts would be lessthan-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
The Study Area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The Applicant, Lead Agency, and RTA would coordinate transit services and amenities available to the Project area. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
The Project does not propose inherently hazardous transportation design features. The Project would not impair or conflict with emergency access. The Project Site Plan Concept provides for adequate and safe access. Final Site Plan design, including site access, internal circulation, and parking are subject to review and approval by the County. On this basis, the potential for the Project to result in or cause adverse impacts related to hazardous features or improper access and internal circulation features would be lessthan-significant. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.2, Transportation.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
VMT Impacts
This Alternative would maintain existing areawide VMT/employee conditions. This Alternative would result in decreased total areawide VMT when compared to the Project © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-26
because no new development at the Project site and no new vehicle trips would occur.
VMT impacts would be less-than-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
No new traffic would be generated, and no new or additional impacts related to other transportation topics would result under this Alternative. As with the Project, airport land use compatibility, traffic hazards, and emergency access impacts would be lessthan-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO VMT Impacts
While not a direct correlation to VMT impacts, a rough approximation of comparative VMT impacts can be derived from estimated trip generation per employee for the Project and the Commercial Development Scenario. In this regard, the Project light industrial uses would generate approximately 3.07 passenger car equivalent trips/day/thousand square feet (PCE trips/day/TSF). In comparison, trip generation for the site if developed with general commercial uses at a scope and intensity comparable to the Project would be approximately 24.44 PCE trips/day/TSF.3
Based on the preceding, the Project at approximately 220,390 square feet of light industrial uses would generate an estimated 677 PCE trips/day. At one employee per 1,030 sf,4 the Project’s 220,390 square feet of light industrial uses would provide an estimated 214 jobs. This would equate to approximately 3.16 PCE trips/day/job. 3 See: DEIR Appendix C, Transportation Analysis Scoping Agreement, Table 5, Trip Generation Comparison. 4 County of Riverside General Plan, Appendix E-2, Table E-5. Light Industrial employment factor = 1 employee per 1,030 sf; Commercial Retail employment factor = 1 employee per 500 sf.
See: https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-genplan-general-Plan-2017- appendices-Appendix-E-2-April-2017.pdf
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-27
If developed with 220,390 square feet of commercial uses under the Commercial Development Scenario, trip generation would be approximately 5,386 PCE trips/day.
Estimated employment for the Commercial Development Scenario would be 1 job per 500 sf,5 or 441 jobs. This would equate to approximately 12.21 PCE trips/day/job. As indicated, trips/job and therefore VMT impacts under the Commercial Development Scenario would likely increase substantially when compared to the Project VMT impacts.
Other Transportation Topics
This Alternative would result in increased trip generation and increased VMT impacts when compared to the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would be designed and implemented pursuant to City Design and Engineering Standards, Policies, and Conditions of Approval addressing traffic hazards, and emergency access impacts. As with the Project, impacts in these regards would be less-than-significant.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
VMT Impacts
Based on the 25% reduction in development scope under this Alternative, a corollary approximate 25% reduction in trip generation under would be expected. VMT also would be reduced proportionally. The number of employees under this Alternative would also be reduced by 25%. On this basis, under this Alternative, the VMT per employee ratio would be the same as under the Project. VMT impacts would be comparable to the Project and would be less-than-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
This Alternative would result in decreased trip generation when compared to the Project.
As with the Project, this Alternative would be designed and implemented pursuant to County Standards, Policies, and Conditions of Approval addressing airport land use compatibility, traffic hazards, and emergency access impacts. As with the Project, impacts in these regards would be less-than-significant. 5 Ibid.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-28
5.2.3.3 Comparative Air Quality Impacts
PROJECT
All Project air quality impacts would be less-than-significant. See EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing air quality conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional air pollutant emissions. This Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts when compared to the Project and impacts would continue to be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Under the Project, construction-source emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction equipment operations and site disturbance under this Alternative would be similar to the Project. Under this Alternative and the Project, construction-source emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.
As noted above under the discussion of comparative transportation impacts, the Project would generate approximately 677 PCE trips/day. This Alternative would generate an estimated 5,386 PCE trips/day. For typical urban uses such as the Project considered here, the predominance of operational-source air pollutant emissions derive from mobile sources (traffic). In this respect, trip generation (traffic) is a general proxy that broadly represents relative air quality impacts of development proposals. The approximately 8- fold increase in trip generation under this Alternative would roughly translate to a proportional increase in operational-source air pollutant emissions.
Table 5.2-1 provides a comparison of operational-source air pollutant emissions under the Project and this Alternative.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-29
Table 5.2-1
Project and No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario Operational-Source Emissions Comparison
(Pounds per Day, Maximum Total Summer/Winter Emissions) Pollutant SCAQMD
Threshold
Project
No Project Alternative
Commercial
Development Scenario
Emissions Threshold
Exceeded? Emissions Threshold Exceeded?
VOC 55 7.07 No 56.56 Yes
NOx 55 21.80 No 174.4 Yes
CO 550 22.14 No 177.12 No
SOx 150 0.15 No 1.20 No
PM10 150 8.26 No 66.08 No
PM2.5 55 2.51 No 20.08 No
Sources: Project operational-source emissions estimates from: Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II, Air Quality Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022. No Project Alternative operational-source emissions estimates: Applied Planning, Inc.
As indicated in Table 5.2-1, this Alternative would result in increases in all operationalsource air pollutant emissions when compared to the Project air pollutant emissions. This is primarily due to increased trip generation that would result from this Alternative. NOx emissions thresholds exceedances would likely occur under this Alternative. NOx emissions thresholds exceedances under this Alternative would indicate corollary nonattainment impacts and AQMP inconsistency impacts.
Increased traffic generated by this Alternative could also include increased truck traffic.
Increased truck DPM emissions and DPM-source cancer and non-cancer risks would likely be increased when compared to the Project. However, even assuming that maximum DPM-source cancer and non-cancer risks under this Alternative would be 12 times that resulting from the Project (0.79 in one million cancer risk; <0.1 non-cancer risk), applicable SCAQMD thresholds (10 in one million cancer risk; 1.0 non-cancer risk) would not be exceeded.
Other operational-source air quality impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-30
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Construction activities and use of construction equipment would be similar to the Project.
As with the Project, construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD emissions thresholds.
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Project development intensity and overall trip generation would be reduced by approximately 25% when compared to the Project.
The reduction in vehicular trips under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would diminish its operational-source air pollutant emissions. The approximately 25% reduction in trip generation under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would translate to a roughly proportional decrease in air pollutant emissions. Table 5.2-2 provides a comparison of operational-source air pollutant emissions under the Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative.
Table 5.2-2
Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative
Operational-Source Emissions Comparison
(Pounds per Day, Maximum Total Summer/Winter Emissions) Pollutant SCAQMD
Threshold
Project Reduced intensity Alternative
Emissions Threshold
Exceeded? Emissions Threshold Exceeded?
VOC 55 7.07 No 5.30 No
NOx 55 21.80 No 16.35 No
CO 550 22.14 No 16.60 No
SOx 150 0.15 No 0.11 No
PM10 150 8.26 No 6.20 No
PM2.5 55 2.51 No 1.88 No
Sources: Project operational-source emissions estimates from: Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II, Air Quality Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022. No Project Alternative operational-source emissions estimates: Applied Planning, Inc.
As indicated at Table 5.2-2, under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, operational-source emissions would be globally reduced when compared to the Project. This is primarily due to increased trip generation that would result from this Alternative. All emissions levels would be maintained below applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-31
be less-than-significant. Related non-attainment impacts and AQMP inconsistency impacts would be less-than-significant.
5.2.3.4 Comparative Greenhouse Gas/Global Climate Change Impacts
PROJECT
As discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, quantified Project-source GHG emissions total approximately 2,813.72 MTCO2e/year and would not exceed the City GHG emissions threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. GHG emissions not exceeding the City threshold do not comprise a potentially significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the potential for the Project to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment is considered less-than-significant.
As also discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Project impacts in this regard would therefore be lessthan-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing GHG emissions conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional GHG emissions. This Alternative would result in reduced GHG emissions impacts when compared to the Project. GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Increased trip generation under this Alternative would result in increased mobile-source GHG emissions when compared to the Project. For analytic purposes, GHG emissions from all other sources is assumed to be equal under the Project and this Alternative.
Reflecting the approximately 8-fold increase in trip generation and mobile-source GHG emissions under this Alternative, Project GHG emissions and GHG emissions resulting from this Alternative are compared at Table 5.2-3.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-32
Table 5.2-3
Project and No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario GHG Emissions Comparison
Source Project
MTCO2e/year
No Project Alternative
Commercial Development
Scenario
Total MTCO2e/year
Mobile Sources 1,892.88 15,143.04
All Other 920.84 920.84
Total 2,813.72 16,063.88
Sources: Project GHG emissions estimates from: Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022. No Project Alternative GHG emissions estimates: Applied Planning, Inc.
Due primarily to increased trip generation, GHG emissions under this Alternative would be increased when compared to the Project and would exceed the City threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. On this basis, this Alternative would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts in this regard are therefore considered to be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Environmental effects of GHG emissions would be increased when compared to the Project.
This Alternative is assumed to comply with applicable plans and policies addressing GHG emissions. On this basis, this Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be less-than-significant and comparable to the Project.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The reduction in scope under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in diminished GHG emissions when compared to the Project. For the purposes of this analysis, GHG emissions under the Reduced Intensity Alternative are assumed to be reduced roughly proportional to the reduction in development scope (approximately 25%) that would result from this Alternative. A comparison of Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative GHG emissions is presented in Table 5.2-4. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-33
Table 5.2-4
Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative
GHG Emissions Comparison
Source
Project
GHG Emissions
MTCO2e/year
Reduced Intensity Alternative
GHG Emissions
MTCO2e/year
Mobile Sources 1,892.88 1,419.66
All Other 920.84 690.63
Total 2,813.72 2,110.29
Sources: Project GHG emissions estimates from: Moreno Valley Business Park – Phase II, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022. No Project Alternative GHG emissions estimates: Applied Planning, Inc.
As indicated at Table 5.2-4, as with the Project, GHG emissions under this Alternative would not exceed the City threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, the potential for this Alternative to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment is considered less-than-significant.
It is assumed that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to comply with applicable plans and policies addressing GHG emissions. On this basis, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be comparable to the Project.
5.2.3.5 Comparative Energy Impacts
PROJECT
The analysis presented at EIR Section 4.5, Energy substantiates that the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
The analysis substantiates further, that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing energy conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would not result in increased energy demands. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-34
This Alternative would result in reduced energy impacts when compared to the Project.
Impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Under this Alternative, building energy demands would be comparable to the Project.
Increased trip generation under this Alternative may translate to increased vehicularsource energy consumption. Like the Project, this Alternative would be required to implement energy-efficient facilities, and to otherwise demonstrate effective energy use.
Under this Alternative, proposed development would also be required to substantiate compliance with state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The reduction in development scope under the Reduced Intensity Project Alternative would likely reduce total energy demands and total energy consumption. As with the Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to implement energyefficient facilities, and to otherwise demonstrate effective energy use. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, proposed development would also be required to substantiate compliance with state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant.
5.2.3.6 Comparative Noise/Vibration Impacts
PROJECT
Project construction-source noise and construction-source vibration impacts would be less-than-significant. Project operational area-source noise impacts and vehicular-source noise would be less-than-significant. Project operational-source vibration impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing noise/vibration conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-35
noise/vibration. This Alternative would result in reduced noise/vibration impacts when compared to the Project. Noise/vibration impacts under this Alternative would be lessthan-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Under this Alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would likely be similar to those associated with construction of the Project. Maximum construction-source noise/vibration levels received at off-site locations would be comparable to those resulting from construction of the Project. Under this Alternative and the Project, construction-source noise/vibration impacts would be less-thansignificant.
This Alternative does not propose uses that would generate or result in operational areasource noise or vibration impacts substantively different than would result from uses proposed by the Project. This Alternative would not require or implement uses that would be substantive vibration sources. Under this Alternative and the Project, operational area-source noise impacts and operational area-source vibration impacts would be less-than-significant.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would likely be similar to those associated with construction of the Project. Maximum construction-source noise/vibration levels received at off-site locations would be comparable to those resulting from construction of the Project. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project, construction-source noise/vibration impacts would be less-than-significant.
The Reduced Intensity Alternative uses would not generate or result in operational areasource noise substantively different than would result from uses proposed by the Project.
Mitigation would be implemented to reduce noise received from on-site noise sources to levels that would be less-than-significant. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not require or implement uses that would be substantive vibration sources. Under the © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-36
Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project, operational area-source noise impacts and operational vibration impacts would be less-than-significant as mitigated.
5.2.3.7 Comparative Biological Resources Impacts
PROJECT
The Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, grading, general disturbance, trash disposal, and use of off-road trails and footpaths. As a result, the site is not considered to be valuable habitat and does not otherwise evidence protected or sensitive biological resources. Mitigation is incorporated to ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and the burrowing owl would be less-than-significant. The Project would not otherwise result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. See also EIR Section 4.7, Biological Resources.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing biological resources conditions would be maintained.
This Alternative would realize no new development and would have no incremental effects on biological resources. This Alternative would result in reduced biological resources impacts when compared to the Project. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Maximum site disturbance and potential impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the Project. It is assumed that this Alternative would incorporate mitigation that would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to levels that would be lessthan-significant. Biological resources impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Maximum site disturbance and potential impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the Project. It is assumed that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would incorporate mitigation that would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. Biological resources impacts of the Reduced © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-37
Intensity Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-thansignificant as mitigated.
5.2.3.8 Comparative Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resource Impacts
PROJECT
The Project incorporates mitigation that reduces potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. See also EIR Section 4.8, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: NO BUILD SCENARIO
Under this Alternative, existing cultural resources/tribal cultural resources conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts.
Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts under this Alternative would be reduced when compared to the Project. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Maximum site disturbance and potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources would be similar to those of the Project. It is assumed that this Alternative would incorporate mitigation that would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Maximum site disturbance and potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources would be similar to those of the Project. It is assumed that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would incorporate mitigation that would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-38
5.2.4 Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives
The Project Objectives and comparative attainment of the Project Objectives under the No Project Alternative: No Build Scenario, No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario, and Reduced Intensity Alternative are summarized at Table 5.2-
5. As presented at Table 5.2-5, under the No Project Alternative: No Build Scenario, the Project Objectives would not be realized. Under the No Project Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario, only 2 of the 9 Project Objectives would be realized. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, all of the Project Objectives would be realized in some manner. However, attainment of 4 of 9 the Project Objectives would be constrained. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-39
Table 5.2-5
Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives
EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES
No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative The No Project Alternative: No Build Scenario
assumes the site remains in its current
undeveloped condition. If a No Build Scenario
were maintained, its comparative
environmental impacts would replicate the
existing conditions discussions for each of the
environmental topics evaluated in this EIR; and
comparative impacts of the Project would be as
presented under each of the EIR environmental
topics.
The No Project Alternative: Commercial
Development Scenario assumes development of the
subject site with a building area equal to that of the
Project (220,390 total square feet). The No Project
Alternative: Commercial Development Scenario
would however comprise general commercial uses
only, rather than the light industrial uses proposed
by the Project.
Under this Alternative, it is assumed that uses
similar to the Project would be implemented
but at a 25 reduction in scope. When compared
to the Project scope (220,390 square feet), the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would realize
approximately 165,293 square feet of light
industrial uses.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Attainment of Project Objectives
No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario
Reduced Intensity Alternative
Implement the City Plan (General Plan)
through development that is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element
and applicable General Plan
Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs.
No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
Commercial uses that would be implemented under
this Alternative are allowed under and are
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element
and applicable General Plan Goals, Objectives,
Policies and Programs. These uses would also be
allowed under the current SP No. 205.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable to the Project.
As with the Project, light industrial uses that
would be implemented under this Alternative
would require amendment of SP No. 205. The
proposed light industrial uses would be
consistent with the General Plan and SP No.
205 as amended.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable
to the Project.
Implement Specific Plan No. 205, as
amended herein, through development of
new light industrial uses that are
consistent with the amended Specific Plan
land uses and development concepts, and
in total supports the Specific Plan Vision.
No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
Like the Project, this Alternative would require
amendment of SP No. 205. Light industrial
uses that would be implemented under this
Alternative would be consistent with the
amended Specific Plan land uses and
development concepts and would support the
amended Specific Plan Vision.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable
to the Project.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-40
Table 5.2-5
Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives
EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES
No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative Provide roadway and wet and dry utility
infrastructure adequate to serve the
Project.
No new development would be implemented.
Additional or enhanced infrastructure systems
would not be constructed.
This Objective would not be realized.
It is assumed that all necessary roadway and wet
and dry utility infrastructure systems would be
implemented under this Alternative.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable to the Project.
It is assumed that all necessary roadway and
wet and dry utility infrastructure systems
would be implemented under this Alternative.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable
to the Project.
Implement light industrial uses that are
compatible with adjacent land uses.
No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
It is assumed that the light industrial uses
implemented under this Alternative would be
designed and implemented in a manner that is
compatible with adjacent land uses.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable
to the Project.
Implement light industrial uses in a
manner that is cognizant of natural and
man-made conditions and that minimizes
potential adverse environmental effects. No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
It is assumed that the warehouse/commercial
use under this Alternative would be designed
and implemented to provide an attractive and
efficient development that is cognizant of
natural and man-made conditions.
Attainment of this Objective would be comparable
to the Project.
Implement light industrial uses that are
responsive to current and anticipated
market demands. No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
The 25 percent reduction in development scope
under this Alternative would limit response to
current and anticipated market demands for
light industrial uses.
Attainment of this Objective would be
constrained when compared to the Project.
Implement light industrial development
that would increase locally available
construction employment opportunities. No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
The 25 percent reduction in development scope
under this Alternative would comparably
reduce total construction employment
opportunities as well as the range of available
construction employment opportunities.
Attainment of this Objective would be
constrained when compared to the Project.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-41
Table 5.2-5
Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives
EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES
No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative Implement light industrial development
that would increase locally available
long-term employment opportunities.
No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
By limiting rather than maximizing the
buildout potential of the site, the 25 percent
reduction in development scope under this
Alternative would result in diminished
efficiency in use of available land.
The 25 percentreduction in development scope
under this Alternative would comparably
reduce total available employment
opportunities as well as the range of available
employment opportunities.
The 25 percentreduction in development scope
under this Alternative would comparably
reduce revenue available to the City and would
incrementally diminish support of the City’s
near-term and long-range fiscal goals and
objectives.
Attainment of this Objective would be
constrained when compared to the Project.
Attract new light industrial uses
businesses and jobs and thereby foster
economic growth.
No new development would be implemented.
This Objective would not be realized.
This Alternative would implement only commercial
uses, and therefore would not support the primary
goal of the Project to transition the site to productive new light industrial uses.
This Objective would not be realized.
The 25 percentreduction in development scope
under this Alternative would comparably
reduce total available employment
opportunities as well as the range of available
employment opportunities.
The 25 percentreduction in development scope
under this Alternative would comparably
reduce the potential to foster economic growth.
Attainment of this Objective would be
constrained when compared to the Project.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-42
5.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 5.2-6 summarizes by topic, of the preceding alternatives analysis, indicating comparative impacts of the Project and the considered Alternatives.
5.2.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines require that the environmentally superior alternative (other than the No Project Alternatives) be identified among the Project and other Alternatives considered in an EIR.
As indicated at Table 5.2-6, with exclusion of the No Project Alternatives as provided under CEQA6
, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would likely result in a general reduction in environmental effects when compared to the Project. For the purposes of CEQA, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is identified as the “environmentally superior alternative.” It is however noted that the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is presented for illustrative purposes only and is not required or proposed as a means of reducing the Project’s environmental effects.
6 If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2)). © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-43
Table 5.2-6
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative Land Use and Planning
All Project land use and
planning impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Under this Alternative, no changes in land use or
development would occur. Less-than-significant land
use and planning impacts resulting from the Project
would be diminished under this Alternative.
Under this Alternative, no changes in land use
would be required. Less-than-significant land use
and planning impacts resulting from the Project
would be diminished under this Alternative.
As with the Project, to allow for proposed light
industrial uses under this Alternative, adoption of a
Specific Plan Amendment would be required under
this Alternative. Less-than-significant land use and
planning impacts resulting from the Project and this
Alternative would be similar.
Transportation/Traffic
VMT Impacts
Project VMT impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
All other impacts would be lessthan-significant.
VMT Impacts
This Alternative would maintain existing areawide
VMT/employee conditions. VMT impacts would be
reduced when compared to the Project and would be
less-than-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
All other impacts would be less-than-significant.
VMT Impacts
Trip generation would be increased. VMT/Employee
and total VMT impacts would be increased and may
be potentially significant.
Other Transportation Topics
All other impacts would be less-than-significant.
VMT Impacts
Trip generation would be reduced. VMT/employee
and VMT impacts would be comparable to the
Project and would be less-than-significant.
Other Transportation Topics
All other impacts would be less-than-significant.
Air Quality
All Project air quality impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Existing air quality conditions would be maintained.
Air quality impacts would be reduced when
compared to the Project. Air quality impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Construction equipment operations and site
disturbance under this Alternative would be similar
to the Project. Under this Alternative and the Project, construction-source emissions impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Increased trip generation under this Alternative
would result in increases in all operational-source air pollutant emissions when compared to the Project air
pollutant emissions. NOx emissions thresholds
exceedances would likely occur under this
Alternative. NOx emissions thresholds exceedances
under this Alternative would indicate corollary nonattainment impacts and AQMP inconsistency impacts. Impacts would be increased when
compared to the Project.
All other impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction activities and use of construction
equipment would be similar to the Project. As with
the Project, mitigated construction-related emissions
would not exceed SCAQMD emissions thresholds.
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Project
development intensity and overall trip generation
would be reduced by approximately 25% when
compared to the Project. The reduction in vehicular
trips under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would
reduce operational-source air pollutant emissions.
The approximately 25% reduction in ADT generation
under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would
translate to a roughly proportional decrease in air
pollutant emissions. Table 5.2-2 provides a
comparison of operational-source air pollutant
emissions under the Project and Reduced Intensity
Alternative.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-44
Table 5.2-6
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)/Global Climate Change (GCC) All Project GHG emissions
impacts would be less-thansignificant.
.
Existing GHG emissions conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would result in reduced
GHG emissions impacts when compared to the
Project. All GHG emissions impacts would be lessthan-significant.
GHG emissions generated by this Alternative would
be increased when compared to the Project and
would be individually and cumulatively significant
and unavoidable. GHG emissions impacts would be
increased when compared to the Project.
This Alternative would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. Impacts would be less-than-significant and
comparable to the Project.
GHG emissions impacts would be reduced when
compared to the Project and would be less-thansignificant.
Energy
All Project energy impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Existing energy conditions would be maintained.
This Alternative would result in reduced energy
impacts when compared to the Project. Impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Energy impacts would be similar to the Project and
would be less-than-significant.
Energy impacts would be similar to the Project and
would be less-than-significant.
Noise
All Project noise and vibration
impacts would be less-thansignificant.
Existing noise/vibration conditions would be
maintained. All noise/vibration impacts would be
reduced when compared to the Project.
Noise/vibration impacts under this Alternative
would be less-than-significant.
Construction-source noise impacts would be similar
to those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant.
Operational/area-source noise impacts would be
similar to those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant.
Construction-source noise impacts would be similar
to those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant.
Operational/area-source noise impacts would be
similar to those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant.
Biological Resources
Project biological resources
impacts would be less-thansignificant as mitigated.
Existing biological resources conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would realize no new
development and would generate no additional
biological resources impacts. Impacts would be
Biological resources impacts would be similar to
those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant as mitigated.
Biological resources impacts would be similar to
those of the Project and would be less-thansignificant as mitigated. © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-45
Table 5.2-6
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative:
No Build Scenario
No Project Alternative:
Commercial Development Scenario Reduced Intensity Alternative reduced when compared to the Project and would
be less-than-significant.
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Project cultural
resources/tribal cultural
resources impacts would be
less-than-significant as
mitigated.
Existing cultural resources/tribal cultural resources
conditions would be maintained. This Alternative
would realize no new development and would
generate no additional cultural resources/tribal
cultural resources impacts. Impacts would be
reduced when compared to the Project and would
be less-than-significant.
Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts
would be similar to those of the Project and would
be less-than-significant as mitigated.
Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts
would be similar to those of the Project and would
be less-than-significant as mitigated.
Relative Attainment of
Project Objectives:
All Project Objectives would
be realized.
The Project Objectives would not be realized. Under this Alternative, only 2 of the 9 Project Objectives would be realized.
Under this Alternative, all of the Project Objectives
would be realized in some manner. However,
attainment of 4 of the 9 Project Objectives would be
constrained.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-46
5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
5.3.1 Overview
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (e) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a recycled water plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”
Potential growth-inducing aspects and elements of the Project would include:
• Construction of infrastructure systems;
• Job creation; and
• Economic stimulus/other.
Infrastructure Improvements
The Project would implement infrastructure improvements that are consistent with City and purveyor master plans. This EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations including, but not limited to, construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-47
lines described in this EIR would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in this EIR. Mitigation proposed in this EIR under other environmental topics would also address potential impacts associated with construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. There are no unique or atypical conditions or aspects of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines that would result in significant environmental impacts. Further, new development that may be facilitated by availability of infrastructure constructed by the Project would be required to conduct CEQA analyses substantiating less-than-significant impacts to infrastructure systems themselves or to customers served by those infrastructure systems.
Job Creation
The Project would create new jobs. In general terms, job creation furthers growth via wages, salaries and general fiscal benefits; increased demands for housing; and increased demands for consumer goods and services. As demonstrated herein, the Project light industrial uses would not result in job creation exceeding that resulting from commercial development of the site per the General Plan. Project employment and any associated growth are therefore reflected in the General Plan and impacts of such growth are considered and addressed in the General Plan EIR. Project job creation and associated growth would not result in impacts not already considered and addressed in the General Plan EIR.
Economic Stimulus/Other
Construction and operation of the Project would act generally as an economic stimulus for the City and region. Project job creation would provide local and regional fiscal benefits and would contribute generally to increased demands for housing, goods and services. Salaries and wages paid to employees, taxes, and other revenue streams generated by the Project would provide incentive for creation of second tier businesses with accompanying economic stimulus, which in turn would create third tier businesses, with accompanying economic stimulus, etc.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-48
Economic stimulus and related growth resulting from the Project would create additional demands for City services. The Project would construct or pay development impact fees offsetting the Project’s potential growth effects and related demands for services and demands on service facilities and systems.
The Project would not otherwise encourage and facilitate known or probable activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To the satisfaction of the City, as-yet unknown activities or developments that may derive from the Project would be independently required to evaluate and address their potential environmental impacts.
Summary
The Project could induce growth through the construction of infrastructure improvements, job creation, and economic stimulus. Project infrastructure improvements would not of themselves result in impacts not considered and addressed within the EIR body text. There are no unique or atypical conditions or aspects of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines that would result in significant environmental impacts. Any new development that may be facilitated by availability of infrastructure constructed by the Project would be required to conduct CEQA analyses substantiating less-than-significant impacts to infrastructure systems themselves or to customers served by those infrastructure systems.
Project job creation would not exceed employment projections developed under the General Plan. Growth resulting from Project job creation is anticipated under the General Plan, and such growth would not result in environmental impacts not already considered and addressed in the General Plan EIR.
The Project would provide economic stimulus that would directly and indirectly contribute to growth and could therefore result in increased demand for services. The Project would construct or pay development impact fees offsetting the Project’s potential growth effects and related demands for services and demands on service facilities and systems.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-49
The Project would not otherwise encourage and facilitate known or probable activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To the satisfaction of the County, as-yet unknown activities or developments that may derive from the Project would be independently required to evaluate and address their potential environmental impacts.
5.4 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
As substantiated in this EIR, the Project would not result in or create any significant environmental effects.
5.5 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines § § 15126, subd. (c), 15126.2, subd. (c), 15127, require that for certain types or categories of projects, an EIR must address significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented. As presented at Guidelines §15127, the topic of Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes need be addressed in EIRs prepared in connection with any of the following activities:
(a) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency;
(b) The adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolution making determinations; or
(c) A project which will be subject to the requirements for preparing of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.
The Project qualifies under CEQA Guidelines section 15127 (a) because a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are required to implement the Project.
Accordingly, this EIR addresses potential significant irreversible environmental changes involved in the proposed action should it be implemented [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.2(c) and 15127]. An impact would fall into this category if:
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 5-50
• A project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• A project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy).
Regarding the above, a given development proposal may result in significant irreversible effects should key resources be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. No such degradation or destruction of resources is anticipated because of the Project. While the Project would represent a permanent commitment of the currently vacant site to new light industrial uses, no important natural resources would be lost because of Project implementation. Various natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the Project, but their use is not expected to result in shortfalls in the availability of these resources.
Construction of the Project would commit the subject site to the proposed light industrial uses for the foreseeable future, and thereby limit the range of other future uses of the properties. Similarly, any development of the site (irrespective of the Project) would limit the range of other future uses of this land. Given the current undeveloped nature of the site, the limited amount of suitable unencumbered vacant property in the City, and the urbanization of surrounding properties, transition of the subject site to a developed state such as would occur under the Project is considered consistent with the highest and best uses of the site. The Project site does not contain any significant natural features which should be preserved for public recreation or open space purposes. The Project site does not contain any known features of significant cultural or historical value. Mitigation is proposed for any cultural/tribal cultural resources which may be encountered during Project development activities.
6.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-1
6.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACMs Asbestos Containing Materials
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
AST above-ground storage tank
AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy
BAT best available technology
BCT best conventional pollutant control technology
BMP Best Management Practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALINE4 California Line Source Dispersion Model
Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAO Chino Airport Overlay
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CBDA Chino Basin Dairy Area
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-2
CCR California Code of Regulations
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 Methane
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRA Community Redevelopment Agency
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DHS California Department of Health Services
DIF Development Impact Fees
DOT U. S. Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-3
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
Fed/OSHA Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rating Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program
fpm feet per minute
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMP Growth Management Plan
gpd gallons per day
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicle
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HSC Health and Safety Code
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act
HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IS Initial Study
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kV kilovolt
kVA kilovolt-ampere
LBP Lead-Based Paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard or Executive Order S-01-07 Ldn day/night average sound level
LDV Light-Duty Vehicle
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-4
LEA Local Enforcement Agency
Leq equivalent sound level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
M Richter Magnitude
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MOE Measure of Effectiveness
MPE maximum probable earthquake
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MPODC Master Plan and Overall Design Concept
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
msl mean sea level
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MTA Metropolitan Transit Authority
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NDFE Non-Disposal Facility Element
NIH National Institutes of Health
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NTS Natural Treatment System
O3 Ozone
OAP Ozone Attainment Plan
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment © 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-5
OES Office of Emergency Services
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Preliminary Assessment
Pb Lead
PCE passenger car equivalency
PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter ppm parts per million
PV Photovoltaic
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMP Resources Management Plan
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTA Riverside Transit Authority
RWMP Regional Water Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCUP Special Conditional Use Permit
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLM Sound Level Meter
SOx Oxides of sulfur
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 6-6
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPD tons per day
UBC Uniform Building Code
UFC Uniform Fire Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
V/C Volume to Capacity
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
7.0 REFERENCES
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 References
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 7-1
7.0 REFERENCES
PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
City of Moreno Valley
Danielle Harper-Scott, Senior Planner
Project Applicant
LCG 10MV LLC.
EIR PREPARERS
Applied Planning, Inc.
Ross S. Geller, Principal
Charly Ray, Senior Project Manager
Amy Flores, Assistant Project Manager
Jennifer Gilbert, Staff Editor
DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15000- 15387 of the California Code of Regulations, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Moreno Valley Festival Amendment to Specific Plan 205 (Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning) January 19, 2021.
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022.
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Energy Tables (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022.
© 2025 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 References
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2023080366 Page 7-2
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022.
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 17, 2022.
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Noise Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) May 16, 2023.
Moreno Valley Business Park - Phase II, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) January 3, 2022.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, 9.98 Acre Property, Moreno Valley, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting LLC) April 26, 2024.
Report of Geotechnical Investigations & Soil Infiltration Testing, Proposed Heacock Industrial Development (Soils Southwest, Inc.) August 5, 2020.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan [MSHCP], Consistency Analysis Report for the Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 2 Project (Harmsworth Associates) November 2021.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5
Moreno Valley Specific Plan No. 205
Amendment No. 2
Initial Study
July 2023
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
(
7 ~,.., ,...,
appliedplanning
inc
INITIAL STUDY
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5
Moreno Valley Specific Plan No. 205
Amendment No. 2
July 2023
Prepared for:
City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
Contact Person: Sean Kelleher
Prepared by:
Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Table of Contents Initial Study Page i
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background, Purpose, and Scope ................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Disposition of this Document.......................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Document Organization................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Potentially Significant Environmental Effects .............................................. 1-3
1.5 Effects Not Found to be Potentially Significant............................................ 1-4
2.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Project Location & Boundaries........................................................................ 2-2
2.3 Existing Land Uses & Land Use Designations ............................................. 2-2
2.4 Project Elements ................................................................................................ 2-9
2.5 Project Operations........................................................................................... 2-19
2.6 Project Opening Year...................................................................................... 2-20
2.7 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-20
2.8 Discretionary Actions, Permits, Consultations .......................................... 2-21
3.0 Environmental Evaluation ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Title ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Applicant............................................................................................... 3-1
3.4 Project Location................................................................................................. 3-1
3.5 General Plan and Zoning Designations......................................................... 3-2
3.6 Explanation of Checklist Categories .............................................................. 3-3
3.7 Initial Study Checklist and Substantiation.................................................... 3-4
4.0 Determination............................................................................................................... 4-1 Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Table of Contents Initial Study Page ii
List of Figures
Figure Page
2.2-1 Project Location............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3-1 Existing Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3-2 Site Photographs ........................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3-3 Existing & Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ................................... 2-7
2.3-4 Existing & Proposed Zoning Designations ............................................................... 2-8
2.4-1 Site Plan Concept ........................................................................................................ 2-11 Appendices
Appendix A: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix B: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix C: EMWD Will-Serve Letter
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGOUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
This Initial Study (IS) addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5, Moreno Valley Specific Plan No. 205 Amendment No. 2.
The Moreno Valley Festival Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 205) was adopted by the City of Moreno Valley circa 1987. The 1987 Specific Plan No. 205 (Original Specific Plan) encompassed approximately 73.74 acres located generally at the southeast corner of Ironwood Avenue (E – W) and Heacock Street (N – S). A subsequent 1991 amendment to Specific Plan No. 205 established a Specific Plan Boundary Area of 81.5 acres “where the land use was re-targeted to more commercial retail development.”1 The Original Specific Plan was further amended in 2018 (Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1). Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 provided a wider range of land uses and development types responding to the then current development trends.
Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 amended land uses and development standards affecting approximately 64 acres within the Specific Plan Area. Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 specifically excluded properties located at the southeast corner of Ironwood Avenue at Heacock Street.2
The expanded range of allowable uses approved under Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 included a mix of uses development, commercial/retail development, retail mix of uses, and open space designation. Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 1 The Moreno Valley Festival, Amendment to Specific Plan 205, February 15, 2018, p. 11; City of Moreno Valley Ordinance No. 935, May 1, 2018, p. 16.
2 “The Specific Plan Amendment [No. 1] will not apply to the parcels at the southeast of [sic] corner of Ironwood Avenue and Heacock Street as identified in the Land Use Plan exhibit on page 21 of the Specific Plan Amendment [No. 1] text…” (City of Moreno Valley Ordinance No. 935, May 1, 2018, p. 2). © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-2
also facilitated the extension of Davis Street in a north direction to re-connect with the segment of Davis Street that extends north of Ironwood Avenue.
The proposed Project considered herein amends the Specific Plan No. 205 Land Use Plan for those properties (approximately 9.98 acres) that were excluded under Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1. The Project would redesignate the Specific Plan Land Use for these 9.98 acres from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.” Additionally, the Amendment would allow, and the Project proposes, development of up to 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses (Building 5). Please refer also to the detailed discussion of the Project presented at IS Section 2.0, Project Description.
This IS was prepared pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Although this IS was prepared with consultant support, all analysis, conclusions, findings and determinations presented in the IS fully represent the independent judgment and position of the City of Moreno Valley, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, as the Lead Agency, the City of Moreno Valley is solely responsible for approval of the Project. As part of the decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider the Project’s potential environmental effects.
This IS serves as an informational document, providing the City of Moreno Valley decision-makers, other public agencies, and the public with an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project.
1.2 DISPOSITION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This IS has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and focus of environmental analysis for the Project. Based on the findings and conclusions of this IS, potential environmental impacts of the Project will be evaluated within an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The IS and accompanying Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR will be available for review for a total of 30 days, and can be reviewed at the City of Moreno Valley, located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-3
Valley, CA 92552. The public is encouraged to contact the City of Moreno Valley for information regarding the Project and related CEQA processes.
1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS includes the following sections:
Introduction: This Section (1.0) describes the CEQA context and IS format for the Project, and provides a summary of the findings of the IS.
Project Description: This Section (2.0) describes the Project and its objectives.
Environmental Evaluation: This Section (3.0) provides background information regarding the Project and Lead Agency, and presents responses to each question on the CEQA Initial Study Checklist regarding the possible environmental impacts of the Project. The potential environmental impacts are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Answers provided in the checklist are substantiated qualitatively in all instances, and quantitatively where feasible and appropriate.
Determination: This Section (4.0) summarizes the results of the Initial Study, and presents the determination regarding the appropriate environmental document for the Project.
Source information cited within this Initial Study is available through, or by contacting, the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department.
1.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The analysis presented in this IS indicates that the Project may result in or cause potentially significant effects related to:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-4
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources;
• Energy;
• Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources Only);
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Global Climate Change; • Land Use and Planning;
• Noise; and
• Transportation.
Consistent with the conclusion and findings of this Initial Study, an EIR will be prepared for the Project. At a minimum, the EIR will evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts under the topical areas identified above. Additional issues or concerns that may be raised pursuant to the EIR NOP process and/or scoping meeting(s) conducted for the Project will also be evaluated and addressed in the EIR.
1.5 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
While it has been determined that an EIR will be required, an additional function of an Initial Study is to focus an “EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (and) explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(c)). Therefore, one of the key purposes of this Initial Study is to focus the EIR’s analysis on impacts that are potentially significant while eliminating potential impacts that are clearly less than significant. The following list identifies the environmental issues that, pursuant to the findings of this Initial Study, have been determined to pose no potentially significant environmental impacts. • Aesthetics;
• Agriculture and Forest Resources;
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials;
• Hydrology and Water Quality;
• Mineral Resources;
• Population and Housing;
• Public Services;
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-5
• Recreation;
• Utilities and Service Systems; and
• Wildfire.
The above topics are not expected to be carried forward for further evaluation within the Draft EIR. However, as noted in the preceding Section 1.4, based on additional information or concerns that may be raised pursuant to the EIR NOP process and/or scoping meeting(s) conducted for the Project, additional issues may be evaluated and addressed in the EIR.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Moreno Valley Festival Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 205) was adopted by the City of Moreno Valley circa 1987. The 1987 Specific Plan No. 205 (Original Specific Plan) encompassed approximately 73.74 acres located at the southeast corner of Ironwood Avenue (E – W) and Heacock Street (N – S). A subsequent 1991 amendment to Specific Plan No. 205 established a Specific Plan Boundary Area of 81.5 acres “where the land use was re-targeted to more commercial retail development.”1 The Original Specific Plan was further amended in 2018 (Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1). Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 provided a wider range of land uses and development types responding to the then current development trends.
Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 amended land uses and development standards affecting approximately 64 acres within the Specific Plan Area. Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 specifically excluded properties located at the southeast corner of Ironwood Avenue at Heacock Street.2
The expanded range of allowable uses approved under Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 included a mix of uses development, commercial/retail development, retail mix of uses, and open space designation. Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1 also facilitated the extension of Davis Street in a north direction to re-connect with the segment of Davis Street that extends north of Ironwood Avenue. 1 The Moreno Valley Festival, Amendment to Specific Plan 205, February 15, 2018, p. 11; City of Moreno Valley Ordinance No. 935, May 1, 2018, p. 16.
2 “The Specific Plan Amendment [No. 1] will not apply to the parcels at the southeast of [sic] corner of Ironwood Avenue and Heacock Street as identified in the Land Use Plan exhibit on page 21 of the Specific Plan Amendment [No. 1] text…” (City of Moreno Valley Ordinance No. 935, May 1, 2018, p. 2). © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-2
The proposed Project considered herein amends the Specific Plan No. 205 Land Use Plan for those properties (approximately 9.98 acres) that were excluded under Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 1. The Project would redesignate the Specific Plan Land Use for these 9.98 acres from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.” Additionally, the Amendment would allow, and the Project proposes, development of up to 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses (Building 5).
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan No. 205 is located north of SR-60 (E – W) at Heacock Street (N – S) in the northwest portion of the City of Moreno Valley, in western Riverside County. The Project considered herein comprises approximately 9.98 acres within Specific Plan No. 205, located immediately southeast of Ironwood Avenue (E – W) at Heacock Street (N – S). Please refer to Figure 2.2-1, Project Location.
2.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
2.3.1 Existing Land Uses
Project site and vicinity land uses are denoted at Figure 2.3-1 and are described below.
Representative photos of the Project site are presented at Figure 2.3-2.
2.3.1.1 Project Site Land Use
The Project site is a roughly rectangular-shaped parcel, totaling 9.98 acres. The Project site comprises current Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 481-020-013, -029, -030, -034, -035, and -038. The Project site is essentially level, evidencing elevations generally ranging from 1,640 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to approximately 1,650 feet MSL.
The site is heavily disturbed, characterized by graded areas and sparse areas of nonnative vegetation. The site evidences two empty above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and fenced area (former gravel parking lot). One of these ASTs was previously used for water storage. These ASTs and all surface features will be demolished/removed as part of the Project site preparation activities.
Figure 2.2-1
Project Location
Source: Google Earth; Applied Planning, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Ironwood Avenue
PROJECT
SITE
Heacock Street
Hemlock Avenue
Davis Street
r--t·•
~
appliedplanning
inc
Figure 2.3-1
Existing Land Uses
Source: Google Earth; Applied Planning, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Ironwood Avenue
PROJECT
SITE
Heacock Street
Hemlock Avenue
Davis Street
Residential Uses
Vacant
Light Industrial
Uses
SCE
Substation
Residential Uses
Light Industrial
Uses
Commercial/Service Uses
··-··-··-
r--t·•
~
appliedplanning
inc
Figure 2.3-2
Site Photos
Source: LCG 10MV LLC.
r•--t
~
'"'
appliedplanning
inc
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-6
2.3.1.2 Vicinity Land Uses
North of the Project site, across Ironwood Avenue, is an SCE substation and residential uses. West of the Project site, across Heacock Street, properties are developed with commercial/service uses. South and east adjacent to the Project site are light industrial uses similar to those proposed by the Project.
2.3.2 Land Use Designations
2.3.2.1 General Plan Land Use
General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the Project site and vicinity properties are depicted at Figures 2.3-3 and 2.3-4, respectively. The General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project site is “Business Park/Light Industrial.” The Project would be allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. More specifically, as described in the General Plan, “[t]he primary purpose of areas designated Business Park/Industrial is to provide for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing and distribution, as well as office and support commercial activities. The zoning regulations shall identify the particular uses permitted on each parcel of land. Development intensity should not exceed a Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 1.00 and the average FAR should be significantly less . . .” (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, p. 2-14).
The implemented Project would comprise approximately 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses within an approximately 9.98-acre (434,730 square feet) site – yielding an FAR of approximately 0.49. The Project’s light industrial uses are consistent with uses allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation.
The Project FAR (0.49) is consistent with and would not exceed the General Plan FAR (1.0) established for the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project uses would be implemented consistent with zoning established under Specific Plan No. 205, as amended herein.
Figure 2.3-3
General Plan Land Use Designations
Source: City of Moreno Valley GP Land Use Map; Applied Planning, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Ironwood Avenue
PROJECT
SITE
Heacock Street
Hemlock Avenue
ll 15
~,....,
~
. .
I
RS
. •
I
• • : I
'··-··-··-=
Residential
RS Residential
~ R 15 Residential
Mixed Use
~ Center Mixed Use
CEMU
Commercial/Office/Industrial
~ Commercial
~ Office
Business Park/Light Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public
~ Public
appliedplanning
me
Figure 2.3-4
Existing & Proposed Zoning Designations
Source: City of Moreno Valley Zoning Map; Specific Plan No. 205 Land Use Plan;Applied Planning, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Ironwood AvenueHeacock Street
Hemlock Avenue
Heacock Street
Ironwood Avenue
Hemlock Avenue
Commercial
Office
Suburban Residential (R5)
SP No. 205 - Mix of Uses
SP No. 205 - Commercial/Retail
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
Commercial
Office
Suburban Residential (R5)
SP No. 205 - Mix of Uses
SP No. 205 - Commercial/Retail
EXISTING PROPOSED
r•--t
~
'"'
Zoning
..
C)
C)
~
..
appliedplanning
inc
Zoning
..
C)
C)
~
..
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-9
The General Plan land use designations of properties abutting the Project site to the south and east are Business Park/Light Industrial. West of the Project site, across Heacock Street, General Plan Land Use designations of properties are “Commercial” and “Office.” North of the Project site, across Ironwood Avenue, General Plan Land Use designation of properties is “R5, Residential.” The Project does not propose or require amendment of off-site General Plan Land Use designations.
2.3.2.2 Zoning
Current zoning of the Project site and abutting properties to the south and east is established under Specific Plan No. 205 (SP No. 205), Moreno Valley Festival Specific Plan. As proposed under the Project, the Specific Plan Land Use designation for the Project site would be changed from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.” The Project would not otherwise affect Specific Plan No. 205 land use designations.
West of the Project site, across Heacock Street, properties are zoned “Commercial” and “Office.” North of the Project site, across Ironwood Avenue, properties are zoned “Residential R5.” The Project does not propose or require amendment of off-site zoning designations.
2.4 PROJECT ELEMENTS
2.4.1 Site Preparation
The Project area would be cleared of all surface features, grubbed, rough-graded, and fine-graded in preparation of building construction. Any debris generated during site preparation activities would be disposed of and/or recycled consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Existing grades within the Project site would be modified to establish suitable building pads and to facilitate site drainage. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-10
2.4.2 Project Development Concept
The Project proposes the construction of 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses within an approximately 9.98-acre site. The Project Site Plan Concept is presented at Figure 2.4-1. Final designs of all Project elements will be realized consistent with design requirements and standards identified within the Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 2 document. Where the Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 2 document is silent, Project designs and development shall comply with applicable provisions of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code.
2.4.3 Access and Circulation
Under the Project Site Plan Concept, primary access to the Project would be provided by two driveways onto Heacock Street, the site’s west boundary; and one driveway onto Ironwood Avenue, the site’s north boundary. The Project would also construct all site-adjacent roadway improvements as summarized below, and/or as otherwise required pursuant to the Project Conditions of Approval. • Roadways adjacent to the Project, site access points and site-adjacent intersections would be designed and constructed consistent with City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element roadway classifications and respective cross-sections.
• On-site traffic signing and striping plans would be submitted concurrent with submittal of Project construction plans; and would be subject to City review and approval.
• Sight distance at each Project access point would conform to Caltrans and City of Moreno Valley sight distance standards; and would be subject to City review and approval.
It is anticipated that 90 percent of the Project traffic would access the Project site via the Project’s Heacock Street driveway(s); and approximately 10 percent of the Project traffic would access the Project site via the Project’s Ironwood Avenue driveway. Trucks accessing the Project site would travel along designated truck routes. Heacock Street and Ironwood Avenue adjacent to the Project site are both designated truck routes.
Figure 2.4-1
Site Plan Concept
Source: Herdman Architecture + Design (5/31/22)
NOT TO SCALE
I
I - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - IRONW000 AVENUE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ uu
ex:
~ ~
(J)
CD
(J)
~
~,....,
~
7'Z
3,000SF
OFFICE
3,000 SF
MEZZ.
50'
appliedplanning
me
350'
BUILDING ~
212,313 SF
il
50'
I'!
40'
11 N.A.P.
188'+/-
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-12
2.4.3.1 Construction Traffic Management Plan
Temporary and short‐term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during Project construction activities including implementation of access and circulation improvements noted above. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a construction area traffic management plan (Plan) to be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include, but would not be limited to:
• Name of on-site construction superintendent and contact phone number. • Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation and quantity of soil import/export (if any).
• Identification and Description of Truck Routes - to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any).
• Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). • Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). • Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. • Identification and Description of Parking - Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-13
• Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control).
The Plan must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Plan and its requirements would also be required to be provided to all contractors as one component of building plan/contract document packages.
2.4.4 Landscape/Hardscape
The Project would incorporate perimeter and interior landscaping and streetscape elements, acting to generally enhance the Project’s visual qualities. Proposed landscaping includes varied trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Design accents, including all landscape/hardscape designs and features, are subject to City review and approval.
Final design of the Project’s landscaping and hardscape are subject to the City’s Design Review processes.
2.4.5 Walls/Screening
Approximately 20-to-30-foot-wide landscape setbacks would be provided along the Project site’s Heacock Street and Ironwood Avenue frontages, acting to screen Project parking areas and generally enhance public views of the Project site. Additionally, landscape treatments would be provided along the Project building public-facing facades acting to further screen and enhance views of the Project site.
Internal site features and appurtenances including, but not limited to, loading dock areas, trash collection areas, and utility pedestals/surface utility boxes, would also be screened.
Project screening elements, including all screening walls, would be architecturally compatible with other Project facilities. Final design of all proposed screening elements are subject to City Design Review and Approval processes. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-14
2.4.6 Lighting
All Project lighting would be designed and implemented in a manner that precludes potential adverse effects of light overspill consistent with requirements identified at City Municipal Code Section 9.10.110, “Light and Glare.” Municipal Code Section
9.16.280, “Applications for Lighting, General Requirements,” subsection A. states:
Lighting serves both safety and aesthetic purposes, illuminating dark areas and providing for highlights and accents. Effective lighting would highlight building features, add emphasis to important spaces and create an ambience of vitality and security. The intent of these guidelines is to encourage effective and innovative lighting to be incorporated as an integral component of a project.
Potential light overspill is addressed through Municipal Code Section 9.10.110, “Performance Standards, Light and Glare,” and would be minimized through limited use of freestanding lighting and use of fixed and shielded directional wall-mounted fixtures. The Project lies within 45 miles of the Mt. Palomar Observatory and would comply with applicable provisions of County of Riverside Ordinance 655 which addresses protection of the night sky from light pollution that would interfere with astronomical observations.
Final design of the Project lighting plan including locations, heights, and performance standards for all Project lighting features and fixtures is subject to the City’s Design Review processes. Detailed lighting plans would be prepared in conjunction with building plan submittals and would be subject to City Design Review and Approval processes prior to issuance of building permits.
2.4.7 Signs
All signs implemented by the Project would be required to conform to a Sign Program as reviewed and approved by the City. The Sign Program would provide detailed guidelines and requirements for facility and informational signs and other graphic © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-15
displays within the Project area. The Sign Program would afford prospective tenants with the maximum possible exposure in a manner that is consistent with the encompassing Project design concept, and responsive to community visual and aesthetic sensibilities.
2.4.8 Parking
Parking would be provided pursuant to City parking requirements. No off‐site parking is proposed, nor would it be required. Final design of parking areas would be as reviewed and approved by the City through the City’s Design Review processes.
2.4.9 Infrastructure/Utilities
The Project site is served by existing mainline utilities services. Primary utilities services are described below.
2.4.9.1 Water/Sewer Services
Water and sewer services would be provided to the Project by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). It is anticipated that water service to the Project would be provided by connection to existing EMWD water lines located in Davis Street, and/or Heacock Street. Similarly, it is anticipated that sanitary sewer services to the Project would be provided by connection to the existing sewer main located in Davis Street, and/or Heacock Street. Alignment of service lines, and connection to existing services would be as required by EMWD. Wastewater would be conveyed from the Project for treatment at the Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (PVRWRF).
2.4.9.2 Storm Water Management Systems
All Project stormwater management systems would be subject to review and approval by the City. The implemented stormwater management system(s) would comprehensively include proposed drainage improvements, and facilities and programs which act to control and treat stormwater pollutants. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-16
The Project would implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with City requirements. In this manner, the Project would also comply with requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other water quality requirements or storm water management programs specified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In combination, implementation of the Project SWPPP, WQMP, and compliance with NPDES Permit and RWQCB requirements acts to protect City and regional water quality by preventing or minimizing potential pollutant discharges to the watershed.
2.4.9.3 Solid Waste Management
It is anticipated that Project-generated solid waste would be conveyed by Waste Management of the Inland Empire to one of three nearby landfills. Solid waste generated by the Project, and related potential effects on landfill capacities, are minimized through compliance with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and incumbent CalRecycle requirements.
2.4.9.4 Electricity
Electrical service within the City is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Moreno Valley Electric Utility (MVU). SCE would provide service to the Project site.
New lines installed by the Project would be placed underground. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by SCE. Any necessary surface-mounted equipment, such as transformers, meters, service cabinets, and the like, would be screened and would conform to building setback requirements.
To allow for, and facilitate, Project development provision of temporary SCE electrical services improvements may be required. The scope of such temporary improvements is considered consistent with, and reflected within the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary SCE services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-17
2.4.9.5 Natural Gas
Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Existing service lines would be extended to the Project uses. Alignment of service lines and connection to existing services would be as required by SoCalGas.
To allow for, and facilitate, Project development provision of temporary SoCalGas services improvements may be required. The scope of such temporary improvements is considered consistent with, and reflected within, the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary SoCalGas services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total.
2.4.9.6 Communications Services
Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an as-needed basis. As with electrical service lines, all existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground. Any necessary surface-mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to building setback requirements.
To allow for, and facilitate, Project development provision of temporary communication services improvements may be required. The scope of such temporary improvements is considered consistent with, and reflected within, the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary communication services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total.
2.4.10 Energy Efficiency/Sustainability
Consistent with the City of Moreno Valley Climate Action Plan, energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated into all © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-18
facilities developed pursuant to the Project. As reviewed and approved by the City, the Project would be designed and constructed in a manner that achieves Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Silver” equivalency. Preliminary Project concepts incorporate and express the following design features and attributes promoting energy efficiency and sustainability:
• The Project design concept allows for inclusion of a photo-voltaic electrical generation system (PV system) capable of generating sufficient power to serve all Project office areas. Alternatively, as a Condition of Approval, the Project would be required to obtain an equivalent amount of electricity from a utility provider that receives its energy from renewable (non-fossil fuel) sources, and provide documentation to this effect to the City.
• All on-site cargo handling equipment (CHE) would be powered by non-diesel fueled engines.
• Regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicular-source emissions are reduced by the following Project design features/attributes:
ο Sidewalk improvements generally facilitate pedestrian access and encourage people to walk instead of drive. The Project would not impose barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity.
ο Light industrial/warehouse uses proposed by the Project act to reduce truck travel distances and truck trips within the region by consolidating and reducing requirements for single-delivery vendor truck trips. • To reduce water demands and associated energy use, development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-19
without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy).3 Development proposals within the Project site would also be required to implement the following:
ο Landscaping palette emphasizing drought-tolerant plants; ο Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques;
ο Use of EPA-Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets, highefficiency toilets (HETs), and other plumbing fixtures.
2.5 PROJECT OPERATIONS
For analytic purposes, the following Project operational characteristics are assumed:
• The Project will be complete and fully operational by 2025, the Project Opening Year;
• The Project will be open and operational year-round, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week;
• A maximum of 15 percent of the Project gross floor area (31,847 square feet) will comprise refrigerated warehouse uses;
• A maximum of 15 percent of the Project gross floor area (31,847 square feet) will comprise manufacturing/fabrication uses;
• Unless otherwise noted herein, all Project operations would occur internal to the Project main building.
3 Reduction of 20% indoor water usage is consistent with the current CalGreen Code performance standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Per CalGreen, the reduction shall be based on the maximum allowable water use per plumbing fixture and fittings as required by the California Building Standards Code.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-20
Project operations would also include on-site cargo handling. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is the yard truck designed for moving cargo containers. Yard trucks are also known as yard goats, utility tractors (UTRs), hustlers, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. Any yard trucks based at the Project site would be non-diesel (e.g., gasoline and/or electric-powered).
Project tenants are not yet known, and the number of jobs that the Project would generate cannot therefore be precisely determined. The City of Moreno Valley General Plan does not provide employment estimates by land use category. The City of Moreno Valley lies within Riverside County – and the Riverside County General Plan does provide employment estimates by land use type. For purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment factors presented in the Riverside County General Plan. The Riverside County General Plan estimates that light industrial land uses, such as the Project, would employ one worker for every 1,030 square feet of building area (Riverside County General Plan, Appendix E-2, Table E-5). See: https://planning.rctlma.org/. On this basis, it is preliminarily estimated that the Project’s 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses would generate an estimated 206 jobs.
2.6 PROJECT OPENING YEAR
The Project would be developed in a manner responsive to market conditions and in concert with availability of necessary infrastructure and services. The anticipated Project Opening Year is 2025.
2.7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary goal of the Project is to transition available underutilized vacant property to productive high quality light industrial uses. Complementary Project Objectives include the following:
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-21
• Implement the City Plan (General Plan) through development that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and applicable General Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs;
• Implement Specific Plan No. 205, as amended herein, through development of new light industrial uses that are consistent with the amended Specific Plan land uses and development concepts, and in total supports the Specific Plan Vision; • Provide roadway and wet and dry utility infrastructure adequate to serve the Project;
• Implement light industrial uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses; • Implement light industrial uses in a manner that is cognizant of natural and man-made conditions and that minimizes potential adverse environmental effects;
• Implement light industrial uses that are responsive to current and anticipated market demands;
• Implement light industrial development that would increase locally available construction employment opportunities;
• Implement light industrial development that would increase locally available long-term employment opportunities;
• Attract new light industrial uses businesses and jobs and thereby foster economic growth.
2.8 PROJECT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS, CONSULTATIONS Discretionary actions, permits and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-22
2.8.1 Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 states in pertinent part that if “a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed . . .” Requested Lead Agency decisions, or discretionary actions necessary to realize the Project would include the following:
• Certification of the Project EIR;
• Adoption of Specific Plan No. 205, Amendment No. 2; and related amendment(s) to City Zoning Map(s);
• Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Map to combine and reconfigure existing parcels comprising the Project site;
• Site Plan/Plot Plan Approval(s);
• Approval of Infrastructure Improvement Plans including, but not limited to, roads, sewer, water, storm water management system, and dry utilities plans.
2.8.2 Other Consultation and Permits
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 also states that the EIR should, to the extent known, include a list of all the agencies expected to use the EIR in their decision-making (Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies), and a list of other permits or approvals required to implement the Project. Based on the current Project design concept, anticipated permits necessary to realize the proposal would likely include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Tribal Resources consultation with requesting Tribes as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act; and SB 18, Burton. Traditional tribal cultural places;
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Project Description Initial Study Page 2-23
• Permitting may be required by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit;
• Permitting may be required by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented within the Project area; and
• Various construction, grading, and encroachment permits allowing implementation of the Project facilities.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.1 PROJECT TITLE
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5
3.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
The City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
Contact: Sean Kelleher
3.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
LCG 10MV LLC
11759 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Contact: Ryan Martin
3.4 PROJECT LOCATION
Specific Plan No. 205 is located northwest of SR-60 (E – W) at Heacock Street (N – S) in the northwest portion of the City of Moreno Valley, in western Riverside County. The Project considered herein comprises approximately 9.98 acres within Specific Plan No. 5, located immediately southeast of Ironwood Avenue (E – W) at Heacock Street (N – S).
Please refer to Figure 2.2-1, Project Location.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-2
3.5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project site is “Business Park/Light Industrial.” The Project would be allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. More specifically, as described in the General Plan, “[t]he primary purpose of areas designated Business Park/Industrial is to provide for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing and distribution, as well as office and support commercial activities. The zoning regulations shall identify the particular uses permitted on each parcel of land. Development intensity should not exceed a Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 1.00 and the average FAR should be significantly less . . .” (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, p. 2-14).
The implemented Project would comprise approximately 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses within an approximately 9.98-acre (434,730 square feet) site – yielding an FAR of approximately 0.49. The Project’s light industrial uses are consistent with uses allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation.
The Project FAR (0.49) is consistent with and would not exceed the General Plan FAR (1.0) established for the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project uses would be implemented consistent with zoning established under Specific Plan No. 205, as amended herein.
Current zoning of the Project site and abutting properties to the south and west is established under Specific Plan No. 205. As proposed under the Project, the Specific Plan Land Use designation for the Project site would be changed from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.” The Project would not otherwise affect Specific Plan No. 205 Land Use designations.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-3
3.6 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST CATEGORIES
CEQA suggests format and content for environmental analyses, including Initial Study Checklists such as presented here, to assist in evaluation of a project’s potential environmental effects. The Checklist presented in this Section conforms to the suggested Checklist format and presentation of information identified at CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Potential environmental effects of the Project are classified and described within the Checklist under the following general headings:
“No Impact” applies where the impact does not apply, or this is little to no possibility of the impact to occur. For example, if the project site is not located in a fault rupture zone, then the item asking whether the project would result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture would be marked as “No Impact.” “Less-Than-Significant Impact” applies where the impact could occur, but the magnitude of the impact is considered insignificant or negligible. For example, a development that would increase area noise levels, but would not cause noise ordinance standards or other threshold measures to be exceeded, would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” Incorporated mitigation measures should be outlined within the Checklist and a discussion should be provided that explains how the measures reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This designation is appropriate for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, where all potentially significant issues have been analyzed and mitigation measures have been recommended that reduce all impacts to levels that are less-than-significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” applies where a project has the potential to cause a significant and unmitigable environmental impact. If there are one or more items marked as “Potentially Significant Impact,” an environmental impact report (EIR) is required.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-4
3.7 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to trees, rocks,
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare, which would adversely affect
the day or nighttime views in the area?
Substantiation:
a, b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized area.
Implementation of the Project would not affect scenic vistas or scenic resources within the vicinity of a designated scenic highway. There are no designated scenic resources within or proximate to the Project site. The Project does not require or propose facilities or operations that would adversely affect any off-site scenic resources.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-5
State Route 60 (SR-60) is identified as a scenic corridor within the Moreno Valley General Plan. The Project site is visually separated from SR-60 by intervening development and would not substantively affect views from SR-60.
The Project site is vacant, and therefore no historic buildings would be directly affected by Project implementation. Nor does the Project propose or require uses or facilities that would affect any off-site historic buildings.
Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway is considered less-than-significant. c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Transition of the site from its current disturbed and vacant state to a site developed with uses proposed by the Project would tend to enhance the visual character and quality of the site and vicinity through the introduction of light industrial structures and associated landscape/streetscape elements.
Preliminary concepts for the Project propose contemporary light industrial architectural designs representing an appropriate and compatible continuation of existing development within the Specific Plan Area. Final design concepts for the Project would conform to the applicable Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards as amended under the Project; and in instances where the Specific Plan is silent, the Project would conform to applicable City Municipal Code (zoning) design guidelines and development standards. The Project would also implement additional or alternative landscape elements and architectural solutions that may be specified by City staff and incorporated as Project Conditions of Approval (COA). All Project designs would be subject to City review and approval.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-6
Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings is considered less-than-significant.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Illumination of Project entrances, walkways, and parking areas would introduce new sources of light to the site and vicinity. Light sources within the Project site would likely include building-mounted, wallmounted, and pole-mounted light fixtures; and illuminated signs. All Project lighting would comply with Specific Plan and City requirements and would be designed and implemented in a manner that ensures adequate site illumination; minimizes or precludes light overspill and glare; and that would not otherwise result in potentially adverse impacts. Compliance with the Specific Plan requirements and City standards would minimize any potential aesthetic impacts of Project light and glare to levels that would be less-than-significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES - In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory
of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the Project:
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Substantiation:
a) No Impact. The Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively, Farmland). The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect any off-site Farmland properties. The Project would have no effect on Farmlands. b) No Impact. The Specific Plan Area, including the Project site, does not include agricultural uses, nor are such uses proposed or permitted within the Specific Plan Area. No Williamson Act contracts are in place within the Specific Plan Area, □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-8
including the Project site. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect any off-site Williamson Act contract properties. The Project would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning designations, nor affect any existing Williamson Act contract(s).
c) No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for forest lands, timberlands, or timberland production. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect any off-site forest lands, timberlands, or timberland production. The Project would have no effect on forest lands or timberlands. d) No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Moreno Valley that qualify as forest land or timberland. Further, there are no areas within the City that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect any off-site forest land or timberlands. The Project would therefore have no impact regarding loss of forest lands or conversion of forest lands to non-forest use.
e) No Impact. There are no forest lands or farmlands on the Project site; and the Project would have no effect on any off-site forest lands or farmlands. The Project does not involve or propose other changes to the environment which could result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land to other uses. Therefore, there is no potential for conversion of forest land to a non-forest use or conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Project Application Materials. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
a) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is locally responsible for administration and implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Development of the Project would result in the production of additional criteria air pollutants which may interfere with, or obstruct, the SCAQMD’s implementation of the AQMP. These potential impacts will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts. b, c) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project implementation would generate fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-10
Ongoing occupation and use of Project facilities would generate vehicular trips and associated vehicular-source air pollutant emissions; buildings proposed by the Project would result in energy consumption, associated primarily with heating and air conditioning, which would generate air pollutant emissions.
Construction-source and operational-source emissions resulting from the Project may contribute to existing and projected exceedances of criteria pollutants within the Basin and could exceed air quality standards and thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Regional and localized air quality impacts of the Project will be evaluated in the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Temporary and intermittent odor releases may occur during Project construction. Potential construction-source odors include but are not limited to: diesel exhaust, asphalt/paving materials, glues, paint, and other architectural coatings. The Project does not propose facilities or on-going operations that would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Construction-source and operational-source odor impacts are controlled as a byproduct of hazardous/potentially hazardous materials handling plans and Best Management Practices implemented under SCAQMD Rule 402 et al. These measures ensure that construction-source odor impacts remain at levels that would be less-than-significant.
The Project does not propose or require facilities or uses that would generate “other” emissions with adverse impacts affecting a substantial number of people.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people would be less-than-significant.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-11
Sources: SCAQMD Rule 402; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-12
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project may result in impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Specifically, the Project site and surrounding area may provide habitat for, and may be occupied by, the western burrowing owl—a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) species of special concern. A Biological Resources Assessment will be prepared as an element of the Project EIR. The Assessment will identify and address potential direct and indirect impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts. b, c) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project’s potential to adversely affect any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, and/or federally protected wetlands will be evaluated as part of the Biological Resources Assessment that will be prepared as part of the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts.
d) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project’s potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites will be evaluated as part of the biological resources assessment and summarized within the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts. e, f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would comply with Municipal Code biological survey and biological fee mitigation requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 8.60, Threatened and Endangered Species). Additionally, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable General Plan Policies, specifically compliance with the MSHCP. There are no other known local ordinances protecting biological resources within the City. The Project’s potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or conflict with the provisions of an © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-13
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is therefore considered less-than-significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Moreno Valley Municipal Code; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. A Cultural Resources Investigation will be prepared as part of the Project EIR. The Cultural Resources Investigation will address the potential for the Project to result in impacts to historic and archaeological resources, including those that may be present onsite within a buried context.
Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts.
c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is minimal. However, as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-14
found, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains were found to be prehistoric, the coroner would coordinate with the California Native American Heritage Commission as required by State law, following the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Based on compliance with these existing regulations, the Project’s potential to disturb human remains is considered less-than-significant.
Source: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would allow for development and operation of up to approximately 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses.
When compared to existing conditions, construction and operation of the Project would result in increased consumption of energy resources. The Project EIR will analyze the potential for Project consumption of energy resources to result in environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential for the Project to conflict with state or local energy plans for □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-15
renewable energy or energy efficiency will also be evaluated in the Project EIR.
Mitigation measures will be proposed for those impacts determined to be potentially significant.
Source: Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Substantiation:
a, i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are no known active or potentially active faults traversing the Project site. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone or an earthquake hazard zone, as mapped by the City (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Figure 6-3, Geologic Faults & Liquefaction). On this basis, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered less-than-significant.
a, ii) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a region known to be seismically active and strong seismic ground-shaking could be anticipated during an earthquake event of sufficient magnitude. The nearest known active fault is the San Jacinto fault, located approximately four miles east of the site. This fault could generate an earthquake of a magnitude that could damage Project improvements developed within the site.
The California Building Code requires construction methods that minimize the effects of earthquakes on structures. As part of the City’s standard review and approval of development projects, any new development must provide a geotechnical study for review and approval by the Building & Safety Official; and □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-17
comply with the requirements of the approved geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with these requirements reduces potential strong seismic ground-shaking impacts to levels that are less-than-significant. a, iii)Less-Than-Significant Impact. Liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement or ground failure are generally associated with strong seismic shaking in areas where groundwater tables are at relatively shallow depths (within 50 feet of the ground surface) and/or when the area is underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. During a strong ground-shaking event, saturated, cohesionless soils may acquire a degree of mobility to the extent that the overlying ground surface distorts. In extreme cases, saturated soils become suspended in groundwater and become fluid-like.
The Project site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, Figure 6-3, Geologic Faults & Liquefaction). The Project Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation (Geotechnical Investigation, IS Appendix A) indicates that on-site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction due to depth of groundwater (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 3). Further, the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of a final City-approved geotechnical report, and applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC) that would act to minimize any liquefaction or ground-failure concerns that may be encountered. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, involving liquefaction or ground-failure is less-than-significant. a, iv) No Impact. The Project site is essentially level, and slopes gently downward towards the southwest with an elevation difference of approximately six to ten feet over a distance of approximately 900 feet (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 2). The subject site is devoid of notable topographic features or substantial terrain differentials. For this reason, the site is not internally susceptible to landslides.
Adjacent properties also present little topographic relief. The Project does not © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-18
propose or require slopes or other site features that would create any dangerous conditions related to cut/fill slopes. As such, the potential for landslides or mudflows does not exist in the Project vicinity.
b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion until the Project is fully implemented. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are maintained at levels that would be lessthan-significant through the Project’s mandated compliance with a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the NPDES General Permit for storm water discharges from construction activities. The proposal involves construction of conventional commercial/retail facilities and supporting site improvements within an essentially level area of the City. The Project does not propose to significantly alter existing topography. Based on the preceding, potential impacts associated with erosion or changes in topography, including loss of topsoil are considered less-than-significant. c, d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project Geotechnical Investigation indicates that on-site soils have the potential for collapse (Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 2 – 3).
Collapsible soils may support large pressures under dry conditions, but experience compression when wet. Additionally, alluvial soils, which are likely loose and wet with organics, may be encountered near an on-site drainage channel.
The Project Geotechnical Study provides Preliminary Recommendations (Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 3 – 4) that would ensure the Project would not be adversely affected by any unstable soils that may be encountered during the course of Project development. Further, the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of a Final City-approved Geotechnical Investigation, and applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC) that would act to minimize any unstable soil concerns that may be encountered.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-19
On this basis, the potential for the Project to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansion is considered less-than-significant. e) No Impact. The Project would connect to existing sanitary sewer lines located in Davis Street and/or Heacock Street. Project wastewater would be conveyed by the municipal sanitary sewer system to area-serving Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment facilities. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. There is no potential for adverse impacts due to soils limitations relative to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Potentially Significant Impact. No unique geological features have been identified on-site. However, the Project EIR will present the results of a Cultural Resources Investigation to be performed for the Project site. The Cultural Resources Investigation will address the potential for the Project to result in impacts to paleontological resources, including those that may be present onsite within a buried context. Mitigation measures will be proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Proposed Retail Development, SEC Ironwood Avenue and Heacock Avenue, Moreno Valley, California (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc.) January 18, 2017; Project Application Materials. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project’s contribution to greenhouse gases emissions may be potentially significant and will be evaluated in the Project EIR.
Mitigation measures will be proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant.
Source: Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-21
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for the people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Substantiation:
a, b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. During the normal course of construction activities, there will be limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. The Project would be required to comply with Hazardous Materials Management Plans and regulations addressing transport, use, storage, and disposal of these materials. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-22
The Project does not propose uses or activities that would require atypical transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials not addressed under current regulations and policies. Mandated compliance with existing regulations also reduces the potential for risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Undeveloped Vacant Land, Southeast Corner Heacock Street and Ironwood Avenue, Moreno Valley, California 92557 (Project Phase I ESA, IS Appendix B) concludes that there is no evidence or indication of RECs, or conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Project site (Project Phase I ESA, p. 9).
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create or result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create or result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered less-than-significant.
c) No Impact. There are no existing schools, and no schools are proposed, within onequarter mile of the Project site. The school nearest the Project site is Midland Elementary School, which is located 0.5 miles northeast of the site. Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) No Impact. The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Neither would the Project potentially affect, or be affected by, off-site locations listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Project would therefore not create or result © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-23
in a significant hazard to the public or the environment regarding or related to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport. The March Air Reserve Base is located approximately three miles southwest of the site. According to the Land Use Compatibility Plan that was prepared for March Air Reserve Base, the Project site is not located within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for March Air Reserve Base. As such, the potential for the Project to result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the Project area is considered less-than-significant.
f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require designs or activities that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Temporary alterations to vehicle circulation routes associated with Project construction are addressed through the Project Construction Traffic Management Plan (please refer to IS Section 2.0, Project Description, Subsection 2.4.3.1, Construction Traffic Management Plan). Ongoing coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction would ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. The potential for the Project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is therefore considered less-than-significant. g) No Impact. The Project site is located in an area that has been largely urbanized, and there are no wildlands within or adjacent to the Project area. On this basis, there is no potential for the Project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. It may be noted that the Project site and surrounding areas are currently provided fire protection and emergency response services by the Moreno Valley Fire Department under contract with the Riverside County Fire Department. Development fees and taxes © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-24
paid by the Project act to offset its incremental demands for fire protection services.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan November 13, 2014; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Undeveloped Vacant Land, Southeast Corner Heacock Street and Ironwood Avenue, Moreno Valley, California 92557 (Hazard Management Consulting, Inc.) May 28, 2021; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Consistent with City requirements, a water quality management plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared for the Project. City review and approval of these documents is required prior to issuance of Grading Permits. The Project would also be required to comply with City standard conditions of approval addressing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements; and with current water quality standards and stormwater discharge requirements established by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Implementation of an approved SWPPP and WQMP, and compliance with standard City standard conditions of approval would ensure that the potential for the Project to violate water quality standards or otherwise adversely affect water quality would be maintained at levels that would be less-than-significant. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-26
b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would not contribute to groundwater depletion, nor discernibly interfere with groundwater recharge. Water is provided throughout the City by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD, District).
Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City as a whole is recharged pursuant to the District’s policies and programs. The Project would not impinge on, nor would otherwise affect, designated recharge areas.
Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project.
Further, construction proposed by the Project will not involve substructures at depths or other subsurface features that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Based on the preceding discussions, the Project’s potential impacts to groundwater availability, quality, or recharge capabilities, are considered less-than-significant.
c, i-iv) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The Project would be required to comply with construction drainage and surface runoff controls pursuant to the provisions of City grading permit(s) and connect to available storm drains. Consistent with NPDES requirements, post-development runoff quantities would not be permitted to substantially increase as a result of the Project. The Project site does not lie within an identified 100-year flood hazard zone. The Project site is not otherwise adversely affected by flood flows. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would redirect flood flows and thereby result in potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts. The potential for the Project to result in impacts in this regard is considered less-than-significant. d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. General Plan Safety Element, Figure 6-4, Flood Hazards indicates that the Project site is located outside the identified Lake Perris Dam Potential Inundation Area. The Project site is not otherwise subject to potential flood hazards or inundation hazards. The Project site is not located proximate to coastal waters, and as such, is not subject to tsunami hazards. The Project site is not located near any bodies of water or water storage facilities that would be © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-27
considered susceptible to seiche. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in release of pollutants due to Project inundation is considered less-than-significant.
e) No Impact. The Project does not propose or require uses or facilities that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would have no impact in these regards.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. No established communities exist within the Project site, nor does the Project propose or require elements or operations that would divide an off-site community. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to physically divide an established community is considered less-thansignificant. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project site is “Business Park/Light Industrial.” The Project would be allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. □
□
□
~
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-28
More specifically, as described in the General Plan, “[t]he primary purpose of areas designated Business Park/Industrial is to provide for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing and distribution, as well as office and support commercial activities. The zoning regulations shall identify the particular uses permitted on each parcel of land. Development intensity should not exceed a Floor Area Ratio [FAR] of 1.00 and the average FAR should be significantly less . . .” (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, p. 2-14).
The implemented Project would comprise approximately 212,313 square feet of light industrial uses within an approximately 9.98-acre (434,730 square feet) site – yielding an FAR of approximately 0.49. The Project’s light industrial uses are consistent with uses allowed under the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project FAR (0.49) is consistent with and would not exceed the General Plan FAR (1.0) established for the Business Park/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Project uses would be implemented consistent with zoning established under Specific Plan No. 205, as amended herein.
Current zoning of the Project site and abutting properties to the south and west is established under SP No. 205. As proposed under the Project, the Specific Plan land use designation for the Project site would be amended from “Commercial/Retail” to “Mix of Uses.”
The Project Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve land use designations that best represent the development and land use activities contemplated by the Project. When a project includes amendments to the applicable land use designation(s), inconsistency with the existing designation(s) is an element of the project itself, which then requires a legislative policy decision of the agency. The request and subsequent approval of a change in designation in this regard does not signify a potential environmental effect. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-29
As discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Nonetheless, given current (May 2023) litigation of the City General Plan, the tentative stature of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and to provide additional/updated land use context for Project, the EIR will include a discussion of Land Use and Planning impacts.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and to the residents of the state?
b) 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?
Substantiation:
a, b) No Impact. “No regionally or statewide significant mineral resources are located within the City of Moreno Valley planning area” (2006 General Plan EIR, p. 7-7).
Additionally, the City has fully adopted and implemented the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). SMARA regulations govern the extraction of mineral resources and eventual reclamation of mining operations; allowing for the mining of any locally-important mineral resources while precluding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental effects. On this basis, development of the Project would not result in any impacts to mineral □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-30
resources that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan EIR; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would temporarily and intermittently increase localized noise levels, and occupation of Project facilities will establish long-term stationary/area noise sources. These noise sources could adversely affect any nearby sensitive receptors.
Further, Project traffic, including delivery truck operations, may increase noise levels along affected roadways, with potentially adverse effects at receiving land □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-31
uses. A Project-specific Noise Impact Study will be prepared to examine potential noise impacts associated with implementation and operations of the Project. Project-related noise impacts will be discussed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant. c) No Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport (MARB/IPA), is located approximately three miles southwest of the Project site.
This environmental topic is not applicable to the Project. The Project would not result in or contribute to airport or airfield noise impacts.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base; March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose new residential development and would not directly contribute to population growth within the City. Project-related employment demands would likely be filled by the existing □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-32
personnel pool within the City and neighboring communities, with little or no measurable increase in the City resident population. Significant population growth is therefore not anticipated to occur as a direct result of Project implementation.
The Project is located within an urbanized area that is already served by roadways, utilities, and other infrastructure. The Project does not propose or require infrastructure improvements that would encourage or facilitate unanticipated population growth.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to induce substantial growth directly or indirectly is considered less-than-significant. b) No Impact. No housing exists within the Project site, and the Project does not propose uses or activities that would otherwise displace housing assets or persons. Based on the preceding, the Project would have no impacts related to displacement of housing or displacement of people.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire Protection? □ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-33
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Substantiation:
a, b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Development of the Project could result in incremental increased demands for fire protection and law enforcement services.
Primary fire protection services to the Project area are currently provided by Moreno Valley Fire Department, under contract with the Riverside County Fire Department.
Police protection and crime prevention services are provided by the Moreno Valley Police Department, under contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
The Project, of itself, is not of sufficient scale or scope to warrant or necessitate the construction or substantive expansion of fire or police protection facilities.
That is, these facilities are master planned to serve the City and region as a whole; and to respond to area-wide growth and demographic trends; not to the implementation of single conventional light industrial projects of less than 250,000 square feet, such as proposed by the Project.
Permit and inspection fees; and tax revenues generated by the Project would provide funding that would be generally available to supplement existing fire □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-34
protection and police protection service levels. Specifically, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Ordinance (Ordinance No. 695). Fees collected pursuant to Ordinance No. 695 would act to offset incremental Project-related fire protection and police protection services demands.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities is considered less-than-significant. c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Employment opportunities created by the Project may result in increased secondary impacts to school and park facilities. Both the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) and the Val Verde Unified School District (VVUSD) provide educational facilities and services to the City of Moreno Valley. Increased student population could result from requests for Intra-District Transfers from employees of the Project wanting to enroll their children in schools closer to their place of employment. The Project would not, however, contribute substantially to the resident population base using school facilities. The potential for secondary effects of the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered school facilities is therefore considered less-than-significant. The Project would pay required school impact fees, acting to offset any incremental effects to area school services and school facilities.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Light industrial uses proposed by the Project would not introduce new residences to the area or otherwise create substantive additional demands for park facilities or park services. As such, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered park facilities is therefore considered less-than-significant. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-35
e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require established public agency oversight including, but not limited to, plan check and permitting actions by the City Planning Division, City Public Works Department, Moreno Valley Police Department, and the Moreno Valley Fire Department.
These actions typically fall within routine tasks of these agencies and are paid for via plan check and inspection fees. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered other public facilities is therefore considered less-than-significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Moreno Valley Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 695); Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose elements (e.g., residential development) that would result in substantial increased demands for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. As such, the Project’s potential to result in increased demands on neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities is considered less-than-significant. □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-36
b) No Impact. Construction of recreational facilities is not included in the Project, nor would the Project require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Neither Project construction nor operations are anticipated to negatively impact any surrounding recreational facilities. As such, the Project will have no impact in this regard.
Source: Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Substantiation:
a–d) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to increase vehicular traffic along area roads. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared to examine potential impacts of the Project to area transportation/traffic facilities and operations. The potential for the Project to result in potentially significant transportation impacts will be □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-37
evaluated in the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant.
Source: Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project Cultural Resources Investigation will encompass potential effects of the Project on Tribal Cultural Resources. There are no known Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project site. Nor is it anticipated that the Project would adversely affect off-site Tribal Cultural Resources.
Notwithstanding, Tribal Resources consultation with requesting Tribes will be □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-38
accomplished as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. Pending completion of any requested Tribal Consultation(s), the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 is considered potentially significant and will be addressed in the Project EIR.
Mitigation measures will be proposed if/as required.
Source: Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-39
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project would be collected for treatment by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), a permittee of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).
The Project would connect to existing EMWD sanitary sewer system lines located in proximate rights-of-way.
Wastewater treatment demands of the Project can be accommodated within the scope of existing/programmed EMWD facilities and would not cause or result in exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB. That is, Project-generated wastewater would be typical of light industrial sources and would not require treatment beyond that provided by existing and programmed EMWD facilities. Moreover, the Project would be developed and operated in compliance with the City regulations and standards of the SARWQCB, ensuring that wastewater generated by the Project would not pose unanticipated demands on area wastewater treatment facilities. A conditional sewer service Will-Serve letter has been provided by EMWD, indicating the District’s willingness to serve the Project (see: IS Appendix C). Provision of sewer service by EMWD is contingent on the Applicant’s compliance with EMWD rules and regulations.
Additional EMWD requirements for sewer service may include plan check review and approval, facility construction, inspection, jurisdictional annexation, and payment of financial participation charges.
No additional or non-standard water treatment is required to meet the Project’s water demands. Water service to the Project would be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The Project would connect to existing EMWD water system lines located in proximate rights-of-way.
A conditional water service Will-Serve letter has been provided by EMWD, indicating the District’s willingness to supply the Project (see: IS Appendix C). © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-40
Provision of water service by EMWD is contingent on the Applicant’s compliance with EMWD rules and regulations. Additional EMWD requirements for water service may include plan check review and approval, facility construction, inspection, jurisdictional annexation, and payment of financial participation charges.
Additionally, the Project would be required to pay applicable water connection and service fees, which act to fund water supply system improvement plans, operations, and maintenance.
Development of the Project site would require the construction of a variety of utilities on- and/or off-site, including electrical, natural gas, communications systems, street lighting, and other facilities.
All utilities currently exist within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. All modification of, and connection to, existing services would be accomplished consistent with City and purveyor requirements. Impacts associated with providing utilities to the Project site are considered less-than-significant.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause adverse environmental effects is considered less-than-significant. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Water demands of the City are evaluated within the EMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP). That is, water demand planning reflected in the UWMP takes into account anticipated development of the City pursuant to the General Plan.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-41
The Project proposes a General Plan Land Use Amendment that would redesignate the Project site General Plan Land Use designation from Commercial to Business Park/Light Industrial. The 2020 UWMP indicates that industrial use water demands are approximately one-tenth (0.1) the water demands of commercial uses (2020 UWMP, p. 4-5). Based on the proposed change in land use, the Project would result in decreased water demands when compared to water demands assumed and evaluated in the 2020 UWMP.
The 2020 UWMP substantiates that there would be sufficient water supplies to meet water demands of the City. Water demands of the Project would be reduced when compared to water demands of the City assumed and evaluated in the 2020 UWMP. By extension, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project.
As supported by the preceding discussion, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and the potential for the Project to require new or expanded entitlements is less-than-significant. c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Wastewater treatment service for the Project would be provided by EMWD. Wastewater generated by the Project would be collected and conveyed to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (MVRWRF). This facility has a capacity to treat 16 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd). MVRWRF wastewater treatment demands in the year 2020 was approximately 11 mgd, indicating a current residual capacity of approximately 5 mgd. Planned ultimate capacity of the MVRWRF is 18 mgd.
There is existing MVRWRF residual capacity available to treat wastewater generated by the Project. Wastewater generated by the Project is accounted for and reflected in current and programmed EMWD sewer treatment facilities planning. Moreover, the comparative reduction in Project water consumption discussed above at Checklist Item XVIV b) would result in a corollary reduction © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-42
in wastewater generated by the Project and related Project wastewater treatment demands. The Project would pay applicable sewer connection and service fees, providing funds available for EMWD wastewater system expansion and maintenance, acting to offset the Project’s incremental demands for wastewater collection and treatment services.
Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential to exceed current or anticipated wastewater treatment capacities or require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is considered less-than-significant.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Solid waste generated within the City is conveyed to Riverside County Waste Management Department’s (RCWMD) landfills. Serving landfills include: Lamb Canyon Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and Badlands Landfill. All Riverside County landfills are Class III disposal sites permitted to receive non-hazardous municipal solid waste such as would be generated by the Project. Landfills serving the City operate below their permitted maximum daily acceptance rates and have the potential for future expansion.1 Based on their current and future capacities and capabilities, landfills serving the City could accommodate incremental solid waste demands of the Project. Compliance with State and City waste reduction and recycling mandates would decrease the Project’s solid waste disposal requirements further reducing potential impacts at serving landfills.
Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal 1 See: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?siteID=2368; https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402; https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367. © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-43
needs. The potential for the Project to exceed the permitted capacity of serving landfills is considered less-than-significant.
e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with local, state and federal initiatives and directives acting to reduce and divert solid waste from landfill waste streams.
The City remains committed to continuing its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs that are available through the City. Light industrial uses proposed by the Project, and solid waste generated by those uses would not otherwise conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is considered less-than-significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; EMWD Will-Serve Letter; Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-44
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
Substantiation:
a-d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Per Cal Fire Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program mapping information,2 the Project site and surrounding areas are not located within a designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would obstruct evacuation routes documented in the Moreno Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The Project would be required to adhere to the Municipal Code requirements and policies included in the General Plan Safety Element addressing disaster response and emergency evacuation. Compliance with Municipal Code regulations and local disaster prevention plans, as well as conformance with the General Plan policies, would ensure that the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Project impacts in these regards would therefore be less-than-significant.
Compliance with Municipal Code regulations and local disaster prevention plans, as well as conformance with General Plan policies, would ensure that the Project would not result in or exacerbate wildfire risks, or increase the risk of 2 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
□ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-45
exposure to pollutant concentrations associated with wildfires. Project impacts in these regards would therefore be less-than-significant.
The Project site is served by major roadways and is located within an existing built environment that is served by storm water, sewer, electricity, potable water distribution, and communications systems infrastructure. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations requiring the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Project impacts in these regards would therefore be less-than-significant.
The Project would be implemented within an urbanized area of the City. The Project site and surrounding areas are not subject to slope failure, landslides, or flooding. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would contribute to or result in potential exposure of people or structures to flooding or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not increase risk associated with post-fire flooding or landslides, and impacts in these regards would be lessthan-significant.
Sources: 2040 Moreno Valley General Plan; Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program Mapping Information (Cal Fire) (https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/); Project Application Materials.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when reviewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. Certain biological resources may be adversely affected by the Project. Additionally, as yet unknown cultural resources may exist within the Project area. The Project therefore may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The EIR will propose mitigation to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts to protected biological and/or cultural resources. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. As discussed in the previous environmental □ □ □
□ □ □
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-47
evaluation, implementation of the Project may result in potentially significant impacts under the environmental topics of:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources;
• Energy;
• Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources Only);
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Global Climate Change; • Land Use and Planning;
• Noise; and
• Transportation.
To a certain extent, impacts of the Project, together with existing uses and other known or anticipated development proposals may have a cumulative effect under the above-listed environmental considerations. The Project EIR will identify the Project’s contribution to, and context within, potentially significant cumulative environmental effects influencing the vicinity and region. Mitigation will be proposed in instances where the Project may result in or contribute considerably to potentially significant cumulative impacts. c) Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated by this IS evaluation, the Project may cause or result in certain potentially significant environmental effects, resulting in potentially adverse effects to human beings. While adverse environmental effects that could affect human beings could, to some degree, be substantiated under all CEQA issue areas, Project impacts that could directly affect human beings include:
• Air Quality;
• Energy;
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Global Climate Change; • Noise; and
• Transportation.
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-48
The Project EIR will address these environmental topics and present mitigation measures for any potentially significant impacts.
4.0 DETERMINATION
Moreno Valley Business Park Building 5 Determination
Initial Study Page 4-1
4.0 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described previously have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☒
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. If the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that need to be addressed. ☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ☐
City of Moreno Valley:
Signature Date
Printed
Signature_____________________________________________________________________
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Geotechnical Investigation
SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC.
SOILS, MATERIALS AND [NVIRONM[NTAL ENGINEERING CONSU LTANTS 897 VIA LATA, SUITE N • COLTON, CA 92324 • (909) 370-0474 • (909) 370-0481 • FAX (909) 370-3156 July 26, 2023
Black Ridge Real Estate Group, Inc.
c/o Mr. Ryan Martin
16901 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, California 92606
Project No. 20022-APPL
Subject: Opinion Letter-Applicability of the Existing Soils Report Proposed Office/Warehouse Building
75542 Heacock Street
Moreno Valley, California
Reference: Report of Geotechnical Investigations
Prepared by Soils Southwest, Inc. , dated August 5, 2020 Gentlemen:
Based on recent site visit, since no evidence is noted of new fill soils placement, or new cut to the grades are apparent based on which the referenced soils report was prepared, it is our opinion that the referenced Report of Geotechnical Investigations, dated August 5, 2020 should be considered valid and applicable for future proposed development.
Respectfully submitted,
Soils Southwest, ~I c •.
Malay Gupta, RC J..08--
~
Dist./1-addressee Ryan Martin (rmartin@I
[email protected]
Established 1984
•
SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC.
SOIi S, MI\I I RII\I S /\ND I NVIRONMLN 1/\1 I NGIN! I RING CONSUi 11\N IS 897 VIA LATA, SUITE N • COLTON, CA 92324 • (909) 370-0474 • (909) 370-0481 • FAX (909) 370-3156 •~ePort of CJeotet:1111iral lnvesti!!ations &
Soil Infiltration 1-estin!! for- WOMl)-13,'iV Uesi!!n
Proposed Office and Warehouse Structures
Proposed Heacock Industrial Development
75542 Heacock Street@ Ironwood Avenue
City of Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 20022-F/BMP
August 5, 2020
Prepared for:
Black Ridge Real Estate Group, Inc.
c/o Mr. Ryan Martin
16901 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
[email protected]
Established 1984
SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC. I
'.:>OILS, M/\II Rl/\I S 1\ ND I NVIRONMI NT/\I I NGINI I RING CONSL,IT/\N IS 897 VIA LATA, SUITE N • COLTON, CA 92324 • (909) 370-0474 • (909) 370-0481 • FAX (909) 370-3156 August 5, 2020
Black Ridge Real Estate Group, Inc.
16901 Millikan Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Ryan Martin
Report of Geotechnical Investigations &
Soil Infiltration Testing for WQMP-BMP Design
Planned Office and Warehouse Structure
Proposed Heacock Industrial Development
Project No. 20022-F/BMP
75542 Heacock Street@ Ironwood Avenue, City of Moreno Valley, California Reference: Conceptual Site Plan Prepared by SB&O, Inc.
Gentlemen:
Presented herewith are the Reports of Soils and Foundation Evaluations and Soil Infiltration Testing for WQMP-BMP design conducted for the site of the planned office-warehouse structure to be located at 75542 Heacock Street, City of Moreno Valley, California. In absence of development details, the recommendations included should be considered "preliminary", subject to revision following development plan review.
Based on test explorations completed at this time it is our opinion that, in general, the soils encountered primarily consist of deposits of highly compressible, dry to damp, loose, silty gravelly sandy fills up to about 10 feet below grade, overlying deposits of variegating layers of moderately dense gravely medium to coarse sands to the maximum 31 feet depth explored. No shallow-depth groundwater or bedrock was encountered.
Based on review of the available published public documents, it is understood that the site is not situated within an A-P Special Studies Zone, and with groundwater table at a depth in excess of 50 feet, as per the California DMG Special Publication SP-117, the site is considered nonsusceptible to soils liquefaction in event of a strong motion earthquake.
Based on the field and laboratory testing completed it is our opinion that with the presence of the highly compressible low SPT soils encountered up to about 8 to 1 O feet should be considered unsuitable for directly supporting structural loadings without excessive differential settlements. It is our opinion that when graded as recommended herein, the structural pad thus constructed, should be adequate for the development proposed.
o\l-OfESSto,1,1,. ~ Respectfully submitted, ~, .;::'((
Soils Southwest, @ ~'( K. Gt;, <%::
Moloy Gupt ,
/::8 <::)\.) ~
7 No.31708
Exp. 12-31-20 John Flippin
Project Coordinator
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
1.0 Introduction
Presented herewith are the Reports of Preliminary Soils and Foundation Evaluations and Soil Infiltration Testing forWQMP-BMP design conducted for the site of the office-warehouse structure to be located at 75542 Heacock Street at southeast intersection of Heacock Street and Ironwood Avenue, City of Moreno Valley, California.
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the nature and engineering properties of the site soils and to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation design, concrete slab ongrade, paving, parking, site grading, utility trench backfills and inspection during construction. The report also include necessary soil infiltration testing and recommendations for WQMP-BMP design as requested.
The recommendations contained reflect our best estimate of the soils conditions as encountered during field investigations conducted. It is not to be considered as a warranty of the soils for other areas, or for the depths beyond the exploratory depths described.
The recommendations supplied should be considered valid when the following conditions are fulfilled:
i. Pre-grade meeting with contractor, public agency, project civil and soils engineers, ii. Continuous grading observations and excavated bottom verifications by soils engineer prior to engineered backfill placement,
iii. Continuous observations and testing during site preparation and structural fill soils placement, iv. Observation and inspection of footing trenching plior to steel and concrete placement, v. Plumbing trench backfill placement prior to concrete slab-on-grade placement, vi. On and off-site utility trench backfill testing and verifications, and vii Consultations as required during construction, or upon your request.
1.1 Proposed Development
No detailed development plans are prepared and none such is available for review. However, based on the preliminary information supplied, it is understood that the subject development will primarily include one industrial warehouse structure of conventional wood-frame and stucco, or concrete tiltup construction with continuous wall and isolated spread footings with concrete slab-on-grade.
Based on available preliminary drawings it is understood that an approximately 223,436 square feet warehouse structure is proposed. Supplemental construction is anticipated to include paving/parking, driveways, among others. Considering minor sloping with uneven grades, moderate site preparations and grading should be anticipated.
1.2 Site Description
The existing rectangular-shaped property is currently vacant and unimproved. In general, the site overall is bounded by Ironwood Avenue on the north, by new industrial office/warehouses on the south and east, and by Heacock Street on the west. The overall vertical relief within the property is currently unknown; however based on site reconnaissance, incidental surface runoff appears to flow towards the west and to the southeast. With the exception of scattered debris, soil stockpiles, along with an existing natural drainage ravine, no other significant features are noted.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 3
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
2.0 Scope of Services
Geotechnical evaluations included review of the available publications for the site and its adjacent, along with necessary sub-surface explorations, soil sampling, necessary laboratory testing, engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. In general, our Scope of Services included the following:
o Field Explorations
For geotechnical evaluations, five (5) exploratory test borings (B-1 to B-5) were made using a hollow-stem auger drilling rig advanced to maximum 31 feet below existing grade.
Supplemental three(3) explorations (P-1 to P-3) are made for WQMP-BMP testing advanced to depth in the range below existing grade at the approximate locations as suggested by the project design engineer. Prior to test excavations, an underground utility clearance was established with Underground Service Alert (USA) of Southern California to avoid possible subsurface life-line obstruction and rupture. Following necessary soil sampling and in-situ testing, the soil sample test excavations were backfilled with local soils using minimum compaction effort. Collected samples were subsequently transferred to our laboratory for necessary geotechnical testing. Approximate test excavation locations are shown on the attached Plate 1.
During excavations, the soils encountered were continuously logged and bulk and undisturbed samples were procured. Collected samples were subsequently transferred to our laboratory for necessary geotechnical testing. Description of the soils encountered is shown on the Test Exploration Logs in Appendix A.
o Laboratory Testing
Representative bulk and undisturbed site soils were tested in laboratory to aid in the soils classification and to evaluate relevant engineering properties pertaining to the project requirements. The laboratory tests completed include the following:
• In-situ moisture contents and dry density (ASTM Standard D2216), • Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM Standard D1557), • Direct Shear (ASTM Standard D3080),
• Soil consolidation (ASTM Standard D2435),
• Soils Gradation evaluations (ASTM D422J,
• Soils Sand Equivalent, SE (ASTM D 2419). and
• Expansion Potential Index (ASTMD4829)
No soils chemical analysis is currently included. Post-grading soil chemical analysis analyses, including pH, sulfate, chloride, and resistivity should be performed prior to actual construction and concrete pour. Reports on such will be supplied when requested.
Description of the test results and test procedures used are provided in Appendix B. o Based on the field investigation and laboratory testing completed, engineering analyses and evaluations are made on which to base our preliminary recommendations for foundations design, slab-on-grade, paving/ parking, site preparations and grading, monitoring during construction, and preparation of this report for initial use by the project design professionals.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 4
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
3.0 Geotechnical Descriptions
3.1 Soils Conditions
Based on test explorations completed at this time it is our opInIon that, in general, the soils encountered primarily consist of deposits of highly compressible, dry to damp, loose, silty gravelly sandy fills up to about 10 feet below grade, overlying deposits of variegating layers of moderately dense gravely medium to coarse sands to the maximum 31 feet depth explored. No shallow-depth groundwater or bedrock was encountered. Descriptions of the soils encountered are provided in the Log of Borings B-1 to B-5 and infiltration test borings P-1 to P-3, attached.
Laboratory shear tests conducted on the upper bulk samples remolded to higher density indicate moderate shear strengths under increased soil moisture conditions. Results of the laboratory shear tests are provided in Appendix B of this report.
Sandy silty in nature, the site soils are considered "very low" in expansion characteristics with Expansion Index, El, less than 20, thereby requiring no special construction requirements other than those as described herein.
3.2 Subsurface Variations
During site preparations and grading, presence of scattered buried debris, organic and others non-structural materials may be anticipated. In addition, variations in soil strata and their continuity and orientations may be expected. Due to the nature and depositional characteristics of the fill and natural soils existing as described, care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating the subsurface soils conditions existing in between and beyond the test explorations conducted.
3.3 Excavatibility
It is our opinion that the grading required for the project may be accomplished using conventional heavyduty construction equipment. Based on upper very low-density fill soils with low SPT blow counts as encountered, it is our opinion no special construction equipment should be warranted in site preparations and grading. Use of no blasting or jack-hammering should be anticipated.
3.4 Soil Corrosivity
Since change in soils chemical compositions are expected following site preparations and grading, no laboratory soil corrosivity potential evaluations are currently initiated. Following mass grading completion, results of the soil corrosivity testing, including in minimum the pH, sulfate, chloride and resistivity concentrations will be supplied on request.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 5
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth of 31 feet explored and none such is anticipated during grading and construction. The following table lists the historical groundwater table based on the information as supplied by the local reporting agency.
GROUNDWATER TABLE
Reporting Agency Water Master Support Services-San Bernardino Valley Conservation District/Western Municipal Water District
Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Fall 2018
Well Number 03S/03W-06D Hemlock /Davis
Well Monitoring Agency Eastern Water Municipal Water District Well Location: Township/Range/Section T3S-R3W-Section 06 Well Elevation: 1654.90
Current Depth to Water (Measured in feet) 73.20
Current Date Water was Measured November 8, 2018
Depth to Water (Measured in feet) (Shallowest) 72.10
Date Water was Measured (Shallowest) March 8, 2018
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 6
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave .. Moreno Valley 20022-F
4.0 Faulting and Seismicity
4.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on the information published by the Department of Conservation, State of Cal ifornia, it is understood that the subject site is not situated within an A-P Special Study Zone, where a fault(s) runs through or its immediate adjacent. However, considering Southern California being in a seismically risky area, it is our opinion that while it is not economically feasible to develop a site that are totally resistant to earthquakerelated hazards, implementation of the design and construction knowhow using the current CBC design procedures may benefit the development planned.
4.2 Direct or Primary Seismic Hazards
Surface ground rupture along with active fault zones and ground shaking represent primary or direct seismic hazards to structures. There are no known active or potentially active faults that pass through or towards the subject site, and the site is not situated within an AP Special Studies Zone. According to the current CBC, the site is considered within Seismic Zone 4. As a result, it is likely that moderate to severe ground shaking may be experiences for the development proposed.
4.3 Induced or Secondary Seismic Hazards
In addition to ground shaking, effects of seismic activity may include flooding, land-sliding, lateral spreading, ground settlements, and subsidence. Potential effects of such are discussed as below.
4.3.1 Flooding
Flooding hazards include tsunamis (seismic sea waves), Seiches, and failure of man made reservoirs, tanks and aqueducts. In absence of such nearby potential for flooding is considered remote.
4.3.2 Land Sliding
Considering the subject site being near level with developed surrounding, potential for seismically induced land sliding is considered "remote".
4.3.3 Lateral Spreading
Structures or facilities proposed are expected to withstand predicted ground softening and/or predicted vertical and lateral ground spreading/displacements, to an acceptable level of risk. Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of soils due to ground shaking.
The topography of the site being near level, it is our opinion that the potential for seismically induced lateral ground spreading should be considered "remote".
4.4 Site Specific Seismic Effects
The site is situated at about 3.86 miles from the San Jacinto Fault capable of generating an earthquake magnitude of M=7.5 to 7.7and PGA of 0.562g. Considering the recorded historic groundwater levels being over 50 below existing surface grade, along with the cohesive silty soils no site soils liquefaction evaluation is included and none such should be considered necessary for the project described.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 7
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
4.5 Seismic Design Coefficients
Using s Site Coordinates of 33.945626°N, -117.242573W and considering the site being situated at about 3.86 miles from the San Jacinto Fault. For foundation and structural design, the following seismic parameters are suggested based on the current 2019 CBC:
Recommended values are based upon the USGS ASCE 7-Hazard Reports Parameters and the California Geologic Survey: PSHA Ground Motion lnterpolator Supplemental seismic parameters are provided in Appendix C of this report. The following presents the seismic design parameters as based on the available publications as currently published by the California Geological Survey and 2019 CBC
The following presents the seismic design parameters as based on available publications as currently published by the California Geological Survey and 2019 CBC.
TABLE 4.5.1 Seismic Design Parameters
CBC Chapter 16 2019 ASCE 7-1 6 Standard Recommended
Seismic Design Parameters Values
1613A.5.2 Site Class D
1613.5.1 The maooed spectral accelerations at short oeriod Ss 1613.5.1 The mapped spectral accelerations at 1.0-second oeriod S1 1613A5.3(1) Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, S, 1.751 g 1613A5.3(2) Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, S1 0.685 q 1613A5.3(1) Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.000 q 1613A5.3(2) Site Class D / Seismic Coefficient, Fv NA
16A-37 Eauation Spectral Response Accelerations, SMs = Fa Ss 1.751 q 16A-38 Eauation Spectral Response Accelerations, SM1 = Fv S1 NA 16A-39 Eauation Design Spectral Response Accelerations, Sos = 2/3 x SMs 1.168g 16A-40 Ea uation Design Spectral Resoonse Accelerations, So1 = 2/3 x SMs NA Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 8
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F TABLE 4.SA.2 Seismic Source Type
Based on California Geological Survey-Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) having a 1 O percent probability of exceedance in a 50- year period is described as below:
Seismic Source Type/ Appendix C
Nearest Maximum Fault Magnitude M>\=7.5-7.7
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration 0.562g
In design, vertical acceleration may be assumed to about 1/3 to 2/3 of the estimated horizontal ground accelerations described.
It should be noted that lateral force requirement in design by structural engineer should be intended to resist total structural collapse during an earthquake. During lifetime use of the structure built, it is our opinion that some structural damage may be anticipated requiring some structural repairs. Adequate structural design and implementation of such in construction should be strictly observed.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 9
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.0 Evaluations and Recommendation
5.1 General Evaluations
The conclusions contained herein are base upon subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and necessary engineering evaluations completed as described. Although no significant variations in soil conditions are anticipated, actual soils conditions may, however, vary during construction from those as described in this report. It will be the subcontractor's responsibility to notify Soils Southwest about subsoil variations, if any, for revised/updated recommendations.
While caving was not encountered, it is possible that a trench, exploratory boring, or excavation would react in an entirely different manner. All shoring and bracing, if required, shall be in accordance with the current requirements of the State of California Division of Industrial Safety and other public agencies having jurisdiction.
Based on field explorations, laboratory testing and subsequent engineering analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented for the site under study:
(i) Moderate site clearance should be expected, including, but not be limited to, roots, stumps, buried irrigation systems, and others.
(ii) From geotechnical viewpoint, the site is considered grossly stable for the proposed development.
Minor rocks may be compressible during grading and utility installations. (iii) Because of the near surface slightly compressible fill soils existing as described, conventional grading should be in form of subexcavations, scarification and moisturization, followed by their replacement as engineered fills compacted to 95% or better. In event new fill soils are required over the grades existing, such should be placed following the subgrade preparations as described. No footings and/or new fills should be placed directly bearing on the compressible surface soils existing. (iv) Considering areas of fill soils encountered, it is our opinion that during grading localized deeper subexcavations may be warranted within areas of buried debris, irrigation pipes etc. It will be the responsibility of the grading contractor to inform soils engineer of the presence of buried utilities or supplemental fills soils when exposed.
(v) In order to minimize potential excessive differential settlements, it is recommended that structural footings should be established exclusively into engineered fills of local sandy soils or its equivalent or better, compacted to minimum 95% of the soils Maximum Dry Density at near Optimum Moisture conditions. Construction of footings and slabs straddling over cut/fill transition should be avoided. (vi) Structural design considerations should also include probability for "moderate to high" peak ground acceleration from relatively active nearby earthquake faults. The effects of ground shaking, however, can be minimized by implementation of the seismic design requirements and the procedures as outlined in the current CBC as described earlier in Section of this report. (vii) Provisions should be maintained during construction to divert incidental rainfall away from the structural pads constructed .
(viii) It is our opinion that, if site preparations and grading are performed as per the generally accepted construction practices, the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the site, or the properties adjacent.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 10
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.1.1 Preparations for Structural Pad
Considering near grade variable consistency loose and highly compressible soils existing as encountered, it is our opinion that no structural footing or concrete slab-on-grade should be established directly bearing on the near surface soils currently existing.
It is our opinion that for adequate structural support, moderate site preparations and grading should be anticipated in form of subexcavations of the near grade soils and their replacement as engineered fills compacted to minimum 95%.
In general, for the structural pad proposed, the grading should include sub-excavations of the subgrade soils up to about (i) 8 to 10 feet below the current grade surface. Actual subexcavation depth should be determined by soils engineer during mass grading by. Supplemental detailed sub-excavation recommendations will be supplied following detailed development plan review.
The site preparations, subexcavations and grading described should encompass, in minimum, the individual planned structural foot-print areas, and minimum 8-10 feet beyond. The engineered fills for structural support should be compacted to minimum 95% of the soil Maximum Dry Density as determined by the ASTM 01557 test method.
The sub-excavation depths described should be considered as "preliminary". Localized additional sub-excavations may be required within areas underlain by undocumented old fills, buried utilities and abandoned sewer and/or buried septic systems. It is recommended that the excavated subgrades should be verified and approved by soils engineer prior to structural fill soil placement.
General Earthwork recommendations are enclosed in Section 5 of this report.
5.2 Structural Fill
5.2.1 Structural Fill Material
Local soils free of debris, organic, roots, debris and rocks larger than 6-inch in diameter should be considered suitable for re-use as structural backfill.
In the event subgrades exposed during construction are found different from those as described in this report. It will be the subcontractor's responsibility to notify Soils Southwest about subsoil variations, if any, for revised/updated recommendations.
Backfills placed should be compacted to minimum 95% of the soil Maximum Dry Density as determined by the ASTM 01557 test method. Import soils, if required, should be gravelly sandy soils similar to the local soils or its better as approved by soils engineer.
In general, fill soils for structural support should meet the following criteria:
Liquid Limit <35
Plasticity Index <15
Expansion Index <20
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 11
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.2.2 Structural Fill Soils Placement
During grading, structural fills should be placed in 6 to 8-inch loose lifts, at near Optimum Moisture conditions and compacted to minimum 95 percent. No fill shall be placed, spread, or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions.
5.3 Structural Foundations
5.3.1 Spread Foundations
The proposed structures may be supported by continuous wall and/or isolated spread footings founded exclusively into engineered fills of local soils compacted to minimum 95%. From geotechnical viewpoint, conventional footings may be sized to a minimum 15" wide, embedded to minimum 24" below lowest adjacent final grade. Actual foundation dimensions, however, should be determined by structural engineer based on anticipated structural loading, soil vertical bearing capacity, soil lateral pressures, and the described PGA, among others. Structural design should conform to the current CBC Seismic Design requirements as described in earlier section of this report.
Use of footings straddling over cut/fill transition, shall be avoided. Excavated footings trenches should be sufficiently "moistened", re-compacted if necessary, verified and approved in writing by soils engineer immediately prior to steel and concrete placement.
For design, an allowable soil vertical bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be considered for the local soils when used as structural fills compacted to minimum 95%. If normal code requirements are applied, the above capacities may further be increased by an additional 1 /3 for short duration of loading which includes the effect of wind and seismic forces. Supplemental 250 psf increment in foundation bearing capacity may be considered for each 1- foot increment in footing embedment up to a total not exceeding 3500 psf.
From geotechnical viewpoint, footing reinforcements consisting of 2-#4 rebar placed near the top and 2-#4 near bottom of continuous footings are suggested. Actual reinforcements as specified by project structural engineer should be incorporated during construction.
The settlements of properly designed and constructed foundations supported exclusively into engineered fills of site soils or its equivalent or better, and carrying the maximum anticipated assumed structural loadings of 40 kips and 4 kif for isolated and wall footings, respectively, are expected to be within tolerable limits. For static loading condition, over a span of 40 ft, estimated total and differential settlements are estimated to about 1 and 1/2-inch, respectively.
5.3.2 Concrete Slab-on-Grade for Industrial Use
The prepared subgrades compacted to minimum 95% prepared to receive footings should be adequate for concrete slab-on-grade placement. For industrial use, 6 to 8-inch thick (net) concrete slab-on-grade may be considered, reinforced with #4 rebar at 24" on-center, underlain by 2-inch of compacted clean sand, followed by 10-mil thick commercially available vapor barrier, such as Stego-Wrap or its equivalent, or better. The installations of such should be as per manufacturer's specifications. The gravelly sands used underneath vapor barrier should have a Sand Equivalent, SE, of 30 or greater. Alternative reinforcement using "fiber mesh" may be considered entirely at the discretion of the addressee.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 12
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.3.3 Concrete Driveways
For loaded track traffic, with estimated Traffic Index, Tl, of 7.0, concrete driveways should consist of minimum 6-inch thick concrete, placed over 4-inch Class II or CMB base compacted to 95%, overlying graded local soils similarly compacted to at least 95%. Actual concrete slab-on-grade thickness should be determined by the project structural engineer considering a soil Modular of Subgrade Reaction, ks, of 450 kcf. Driveway slab reinforcing and construction/expansion joints etc. should be incorporated as recommended by the project structural engineer. Use of thicker driveway edges are strongly suggested. Suggested minimum reinforcing requirement is #4 rebar at 24" on-center. Alternative reinforcing use may be considered entirely at the discretion of the addressee.
Subgrades to receive concrete should be "pre-moistened" as would be expected in any such concrete placement. Use of low-slump concrete is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that utility trenches underlying concrete slabs and driveways should be thoroughly backfilled with gravelly sandy soils mechanically compacted to the recommended minimum prior to concrete pour. No water jetting should be allowed in lieu of the recommended mechanical compaction.
5.3.4 Concrete Curing and Crack Control
The recommendations presented in this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of concrete slabs-on-grade due to concrete curing or settlement. However, even when the following recommendations have been implemented; foundations, stucco walls and concrete slabs-on-grade may display some minor cracking due to minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage.
To reduce and/or control concrete shrinkage, curling or cracking, concrete slabs shall be "cured" by using water prior to structural load placement. The following general procedures are recommended:
1. CONCRETE STRENGTH@28 DAYS SHOULD BE AS DETERMINED BY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER.
2. BEFORE OPERATING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ON SLABS, INSURE THAT CONCRETE SLABS ARE PROPERLY "CURED".
3. DO NOT POUR CONCRETE WHEN OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 90° FOR 80° F WHEN THE WIND EXCEEDS 12 MPH. CONCRETE POURING IN EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
4. START CURING AS SOON AS HARD TROWELING IS DONE. ALL CURING SHALL BE WET CURING BY USING BURLAP FOR A MINIMUM OF 7 DAYS. BURLAP MUST BE PLACED WITHIN 2 HOURS OF POURING (NO SPRAY CURING).
5. WHEN WIND, TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS CAUSE EARLY DISAPPEARANCE OF BLEED WATER, STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO USE A FOG SPRAY. CURING SHALL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINISHING TROWELING.
The occurrence of concrete cracking may also be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete used, proper concrete placement and curing, and by placement of crack control joints at reasonable intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. For standard crack control maximum expansion joint spacing of 12 feet should not be exceeded. Shorter distance between joint spacing would provide greater crack control. Joints at curves and angle points are suggested, as recommended by structural engineer.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 13
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.3.5 Structural Asphalt Concrete Pavement Thickness
Based on laboratory determined soil Sand Equivalent, SE, and on an estimated soil R-value of about 50, the following flexible pavement sections are provided for preliminary estimation purposes.
Service Area Traffic Pavement Paving
Index, Tl Type Thickness (inch)
On-site paving/parking for
commercial
vehicle/conventional
7.0 a.c. over CL. II base 6.0 over4.0
passenger cars
Within paving areas, subgrade soils should be scarified moisture conditioned from 3% to 5% percent over optimum, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative to soil's maximum Dry Density as determined by the method ASTM D1557 test procedures. The asphalt used and the base material recommended should also be compacted to minimum 95%.
The pavement evaluations are based on estimated Traffic Index (Tl) as shown and on the soil Rvalue as described. It is recommended that following mass grading completion, representative site soils should be laboratory tested to determined actual soil R-value, based on which and on the Tl as provided by the local public agency designed paving thickness should be determined for actual implementation on site
5.4 Resistance to Lateral Loads
Resistance to lateral loads can be restrained by friction acting at the base of foundation and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be assumed with normal dead load forces for footing established on compacted fill.
An allowable passive lateral earth resistance of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be assumed for the sides of foundations poured against compacted fill local soils or its similar.
The maximum lateral passive earth pressure is recommended not to exceed 2500 pounds per square foot.
For design, lateral pressures from local soils when used as level backfill may be estimated from the following equivalent fluid density:
Active: 35 pcf
At Rest: 60 pcf
The above values may be increased by 1/3 when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed on compacted engineered fills. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 14
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Based on the results of field observations and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the upper soils when used graded may be subjected to a volume change. Assuming a 95% relative compaction for structural fills and assuming an over-excavation and recompaction depth of about 5 feet, such volume change due to shrinkage may be on the order of 15 percent or more. Further volume change may be expected following removal of buried utilities and debris, if any.
Supplemental shrinkage is expected during preparation of the underlying natural soils prior to compacted fill placement. For estimation purposed, site subsoils subsidence may be approximated to about 2.5-inch when conventional construction equipments are used.
5.6 Construction Consideration
5.6.1 Unsupported Excavation
Temporary construction excavation up to a depth of 4 feet may be made without any lateral support. It is recommended that no surcharge loads such as construction equipments, be allowed within a line drawn upward at 45 degree from the toe of temporary excavations. Use of sloping for deep excavation may be considered where plan excavation dimensions are not constrained by any existing structure.
5.6.2 Supported Excavations
If vertical excavations exceeding 4 feet in depths become warranted such should be achieved using shoring to support side walls.
5.7 Site Preparations
The site preparation should include sub-excavation of the upper loose and compressible soils varying in depth of 8 to 10 feet, stockpiling, moisturization to near Optimum Moisture content. Site preparations should also include replacement of the excavated soils and other approved imported fills, if any, in 6 to 8-inch thick, compacted to the minimum 95% relative compaction. Such earth work should be in accordance with the applicable grading recommendations provided in the current CBC and as recommended in Section 5.0 of this report.
5.8 Soil Caving
Considering the sandy site soils, minor caving may be expected during deep excavations.
Temporary excavations in excess of 5 feet should be made at a slope ratio of 2 to 1 (h:v) or flatter, or as per the construction guidelines as provided by Cal-Osha.
Concrete Paving, if considered, should be at least 6-inch thick reinforced with #5 rebar at 18" o/c, placed directly over the local sandy gravelly soils compacted to minimum 95%. Actual paving thickness, however, should be supplied by the project structural engineer based on soil Subgrade Reaction, ks, of 450 kcf as described.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 15
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
5.9 Utility Trench Backfill
In absence of precise grading and development plan review, it is our opinion that utility trench backfills within proposed structural pad should be placed in accordance with the following recommendations:
o Trench backfill should be placed in thin lifts compacted to 90 percent or better of the laboratory maximum dry density for the soils used. As an alternative, clean granular sand may be used having a SE value greater than 30. Jetting is not recommended within utility trench backfill. o Exterior trenches along a foundation or a toe of a slope and extending below a 1: 1 imaginary line projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing or toe of the slope should be compacted to 90 percent of the Maximum Dry Density for the soils used during backfill. All trench excavations should conform to the requirements and safety as specified by the Cal-Osha
5.9.1 Utilities
Considering seismically susceptible ground shaking, use of commercially available flexible connections for utilities and life-line services are suggested.
Utility knockouts in foundation walls should be oversized to accommodate differential movements.
Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. If granular fill materials are placed beneath the building, utility trenches that penetrate beneath the building should be effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow through the trenches that could migrate below the building.
5.10 Pre-construction Meeting
It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on-site pre-grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction.
5.11 Seasonal Limitations
No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. Where the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until moisture conditions are considered favorable by the soils engineer.
5.12 Planters
To minimize potential differential settlement to foundations, planters requiring heavy irrigation should be restricted from using adjacent to footings. In event such becomes unavoidable, planter boxes with sealed bottoms, should be considered.
5.13 Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Pad drainage should be directed towards streets and to other approved areas away from foundations. Slope areas should be planted with draught resistant vegetation. Over watering landscape areas could Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 16
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley adversely affect the proposed site development during its life-time use.
5.14 Observations and Testing During Construction
20022-F
Recommendations provided are based on the assumption that structural footings and slab-ongrade be established exclusively into compacted fills. Excavated footings should be inspected, verified and certified by soils engineer prior to steel and concrete placement to ensure their sufficient embedment and proper bearing as recommended. Structural backfills discussed should be placed under direct observations and testing by this facility. Excess soils generated from footing excavations should be removed from pad areas and such should not be allowed on subgrades underlying concrete slab.
In event other geotechnical consultants are retained during grading, Soils Southwest, Inc. will not be held responsible for any distress that may occur during life-time use of the structures constructed.
5.15 Plan Review
Based on the site plan supplied, the recommendations supplied should be considered 'preliminary'. It is recommended that grading and development plans should be reviewed when prepared in order verify adequacy of the geotechnical recommendations supplied. Supplemental recommendations may be warranted following grading plan review.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 17
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
6.0 Earth Work/General Grading Recommendations
Site preparations and grading should involve over-excavation and replacement of local soils as structural fill compacted to 95% or better. Although no significant variations in soil conditions are anticipated, actual soils conditions may vary in the event subgrades exposed during construction are found different from those as described in this report. It will be the subcontractor's responsibility to notify Soils Southwest about sub soil variation, if any, for revised/updated recommendations.
Structural Backfill:
Local soils free of debris, large rocks and organic should be considered suitable for reuse as backfill. Loose soils, formwork and debris should be removed prior to backfilling retaining walls.
On-site sand backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommended specifications provided below. Where space limitations do not allow conventional backfilling operations, special backfill materials and procedures may be required. Pea gravel or other select backfill can be used in limited space areas. Additional recommendations on such will be supplied when requested.
Site Drainage:
Adequate positive drainage should be maintained away from the structural pads constructed. A 2% desirable slope for surface drainage is recommended. Planters and landscaped areas adjacent to building should be designed as such so as to minimize water infiltration into sub-soils.
Adjacent to footings, use of planter areas with closed bottoms and controlled drainage, should be considered.
Utility Trenches:
Buried utility conduits should be bedded and backfilled around the conduit in accordance with the project specifications. Where conduit underlies concrete slab-on-grade and pavement, the remaining trench backfill above the pipe should be mechanically compacted.
General Grading Recommendations:
Recommended general specifications for surface preparation to receive fill and compaction for structural and utility trench backfill and others are presented below.
1. Areas to be graded, backfilled or paved, shall be grubbed, stripped and cleaned of all buried and undetected debris, structures, concrete, vegetation and other deleterious materials prior to grading.
2. Where compacted fill is to provide vertical support for foundations, all loose, soft and other incompetent soils should be removed to full depth as approved by soils engineer, or at least up to the depth as previously described in this report The areas of such removal should extend at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of exterior foundation limit or to the extent as approved by soils engineer during grading.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 18
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
3. The fills to support foundations and slab-on-grade should be compacted to minimum 95% of the soil's Maximum Dry Density at 3% to 5% over Optimum. In order to minimize potential differential settlements to foundations and slabs straddling over cut and fill transition, cut portions following cut, should be fu rther over excavated and such be replaced as engineered fill compacted to at least 95% of the soil's Maximum Dry Density as described in this report.
4. Utility trenches within building pad areas and beyond should be backfilled with granular material and such should be mechanically compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density for the material used.
5. Compaction for structural fills shall be determined relative to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM 01557 compaction methods. All in-situ field density of compacted fill shall be determined by the ASTM 01556 standard methods or by other approved procedures.
6. All new imported soils if required shall be clean granular non-expansive material or as approved by the soils engineer.
7. During grading, fill soils shall be placed as thin layers, thickness of which following compaction shall not exceed six to eight inches.
8. No rocks over six to eight inches in diameter shall be permitted to use as a grading material without prior approval of soils engineer.
9. No jetting and/or water tampering be considered for backfill compaction for utility trenches without prior approval of the soils engineer. For such backfill, hand tampering with fill layers of 8 to 12 inches in thickness, or as approved by the soils engineer is recommended.
10. Utility trenches at depth and cesspool and abandoned septic tank existing within building pad areas and beyond, should be excavated and removed, or such should be backfilled with gravel, slurry or by other material as approved by soils engineer.
11. Imported fill soils if required, should be equivalent to site soils or better. Such should be approved by the soils engineer prior to their use.
12. Grading required for pavement, side-walk or other facilities to be used by general public, should be constructed under direct observation of soils engineer or as required by the local public agencies.
13. A site meeting should be held between grading contractor and soils engineer prior to actual construction. Two days of prior notice will be required for such meeting.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 19
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
7.0 WQMP-BMP Stormwater Disposal Design
Water Infiltration Rate Using Porchet Method
Presented herewith are the preliminary results of soils infiltration testing performed for the planned storm water disposal design system proposed for the project site described. Considering the relatively homogenous silty sand during preliminary site explorations, no known changes are anticipated during site grading, however test results should be considered tentative given the potential for changes to site finish grade(s) or changes in soil conditions during grading.
Three (3) infiltration tests were performed at about 10 to 12 feet below the current grades as suggested by the project civil engineer within the approximate location of the proposed underground stormwater chamber as supplied by the project engineering proposed site plan. Although tested, the original P-1 test is omitted from the analyses and reporting since soil conditions varied greatly compared to the other two infiltration test borings and adjacent soil sample borings where very coarse gravely sandy conditions resulted in excessive infiltration test results more than doubled that of P-2 and P-3.
Tests were performed using the standardized "falling-head" test converted using the Porchet Method to infiltration rate as per the guidelines in accordance with the Table 1, Infiltration Basin Option 2 of Appendix A of the Riverside County-Low Impact Development (LID) BMP design Handbook/ Approximate test locations are shown on Plate 1, attached.
The soils encountered consist in general of upper fine to medium course silty sands to the maximum 12 feet depth explored and proposed chamber bottom (P-2 and P-3). For the purposes of determining the presence/or lack of presence of groundwater or any impermeable soils, soils encountered below twelve (12) feet to maximum depth of thirty one (31) feet consists, in general of, silty fine fill and local sands overlying variegating layers of silty and slightly clayey sands and fine to medium coarse gravely sands with pebbles and rock fragments, test boring (B-1 ),
No free groundwater was encountered. Descriptions of the soils encountered are provided in the Log of Borings, P-1 to P-3 attached.
Based on the field infiltration testing completed, it is our opinion that for the infiltration system design proposed at between 10 to 12 feet below grade, the observed soils infiltration rates are 5.2 and 5.4 in/hr.
For design, it is suggested that, use of an appropriate factor of safety as determined by the design engineer should considered to the observed rate to account for long-term saturation, inconsistencies in subsoil conditions, potential for silting and lack of maintenance. The observed soils percolation rates are provided in Table7.4.1 in Section 7.4 of this report.
7.1 EXCAVATED TEST BORINGS
For BMP soil infiltration testing at the location as shown on the accompanying Plate 1, three (3) tests borings (P-1 to P-3) were made using a 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger drilling rig, advanced to approximately 10 and 12 feet below the current grade as suggested the project engineer. Water used during infiltration percolation testing was supplied by using water jugs and a water tank.
7.2 METHODOLOGY AND TEST PROCEDURES:
EQUIPMENT SET-UP (POST EXCAVATION) PROCEDURES
Following test boring completion, each of the test holes were fitted with perforated pvc pipes backfilled with 2-inch thick crushed rock at the bottom to minimize potentials for scouring and caving. For testing, each test hole was initially filled using water supplied by water jugs.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August5,2020 Page 20
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F Prior to actual testing, in order to determine test intervals, as per the Section 2.3 for deep percolation testing of the referenced handbook guideline, one to two consecutive readings were performed to determine if six (6) or more inches of water seeped in 25 minutes. Since 6 inches or more of water seeped away in less than 25 minutes for both P-2 and P-3, subsequent percolation testing were performed at 10-minute time intervals for at least the minimum six hours or until the rates were consistent.
Testing included water placement at about 7-10 feet below existing grade surface (inlet depth or 24 inches above infiltration system bottom).
The final 10-minute recorded percolation test rates were converted into an Infiltration Rate (It) for inches per hour using the "Porchet Method" equation as described in the Reference 2, Riverside County Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook.
7 .3 INFILTRATION TEST RESULT
Based on the soils infiltration testing completed at the test locations and at the test depth as described, the observed soil percolation rates are 5.2"/hr and 5.4"/hr for the test locations P-2 and P-3 respectively.
Calculations to convert the percolation test rate to infiltration test rates in accordance with Section 2.3 of the County Handbook are presented in Table I and II below. For design, it is suggested that, use of a factor of safety of 2.0 to 3.0, or an appropriate Factor of Safety as selected by the design engineer should be considered to the observed field percolation rate described.
7.3.1. Conversion Calculations & Summary:
TABLE I
Conversion Table (Porchet Method)
Test Depth Time Initial Final Initial Final Change Average Head No. Test Hole Interval Depth Depth Water Water Height/ Height/Time (inches) (inch) (inch) Height Height Time
(inch) (inch)
Dr 6r (Min) Do (in l Dr(in) Ho=Dt-Do Hr=Dt-Dr 6H= Hr-Ho Havg = ( Ho+Hr }/2 P-1 -RO -1-0 &e -1.U).,G ~ .U).,G ~ ~
P-2 144 10 120 125.5 24.0 18.5 5.5 21.25
P-3 110 10 86 95.5 24.0 14.5 9.5 19.25
Infiltration Rate (lt)=ft.H60r/LH(r+2Havu)
A B C
Test No. Lll-1 60r Ll t (r+2Havg ) 1\/ B=i n/hr
P- 1 .§-+-6.G -'HH} -1-h-G
P- 2 1320 252 . 5 ') . )]
P-3 2280 425 . 0 ', . 16
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 21
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
TABLE II
For WQMP-BMP design, based on the soils infiltration testing completed and, on the calculations as described, the following infiltration rates may be considered. Actual field test data are attached.
Observed Infiltration Rate for Desiqn
Test Date Test Relative Test Depth (ft.) Observed Rate
No. Site Below Grade (inch/hour)
(7-9-2020) Location Porchet Method
P--4 --£0utA .:J-Q.,Q 4-&.Q
P-2 North 12.0 5.23
P-3 West 10.0 5.36
Use of safety factor should be considered to account for long-term saturation, inconsistencies in subsoil conditions, along with the potential for silting of percolating soils.
The infiltration rate described is based on the in-situ testing completed at the locations as suggested by the project civil engineer. In event the final chamber location and depth vary considerably from those as described herein, supplemental soils infiltration testing may be warranted.
It should be noted that over prolong use and lack of maintenance the detention/infiltration basins or deep chambers constructed based on the suggested design rate may experience much lower infiltration rate due to the accumulation of silts, fines, oils and others. Regular maintenance of the chambers in form of removal of debris, oil and fines are strongly recommended. A maintenance record of such is suggested for future use, if any.
Suggested Site Requirements for Stormwater BMP installation The invert of stormwater infiltration shall be at least 10 feet above the groundwater elevation. Stormwater infiltration BMPs shall not be placed on steep slopes and shall not create the condition or potential for slopes instability.
Stormwater infiltration shall not increase the potential for static or seismic settlement of structures on or its adjacent.
Stormwater infiltration shall not place an increased surcharge on structures or foundations on or its adjacent. The pore-water pressure shall not be increased on soil retaining structures on or adjacent to the site.
The invert of stormwater infiltration shall be set back at least 15 feet, and outside a 1: 1 plan drawn up from the bottom of adjacent foundations.
Stormwater infiltration shall not be located near utility lines where the introduction of stormwater could cause damage to utilities or settlement of trench backfill.
Stormwater infiltration is not allowed within 100 feet of any potable groundwater production well.
Once installed, regular maintenance of the detention basin is recommended.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5, 2020 Page 22
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley 20022-F
8.0 Closure
The conclusions and recommendations presented are based on the findings and observations made at the time of subsurface test explorations. The recommendations should be considered 'preliminary' since they are based on soil samples only. Supplemental investigation and engineering evaluations may be required following grading plan review.
If during construction, the subsoils exposed appear to be different from those as described in this report, this office should be notified to consider any possible need for revised/updated geotechnical recommendations.
Recommendations provided are based on the assumptions that structural footings will be established exclusively into compacted fill. No footings and/or slabs are allowed straddling over cut/fill transition interface.
Final grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by this office when they become available.
Site grading must be performed under inspection by geotechnical representative of this office.
Excavated footings should be inspected and approved by soils engineer prior to steel and concrete placement to ensure that foundations are founded into satisfactory soils and excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials.
A pre-grading meeting between grading contractor and soils engineer is recommended prior to construction preferably at the site, to discuss the grading procedures to be implemented and other requirements described in this report to be fulfilled.
This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of the addressee for the project referenced in the context. It shall not be transferred or be used by other parties without a written consent by Soils Southwest, Inc. We cannot be responsible for use of this report by others without inspection and testing of grading operations by our personnel.
Should the project be delayed beyond one year after the date of this report; the recommendations presented shall be reviewed to consider any possible change in site conditions.
The recommendations presented are based on the assumption that the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by a representative of this office.
The field observations are considered a continuation of the geotechnical investigation performed.
IF ANOTHER FIRM IS RETAINED FOR GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING, OUR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC. WOULD NOT BE THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. FURTHER, USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY OTHERS WILL RELIEVE SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC. OF ANY LIABILITY THAT MAY ARISE DURING LIFETIME USE OF THE STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED.
Soils Southwest, Inc. August 5. 2020 Page 23
Heacock lndustrial/75542 Heacock St & Ironwood Ave., Moreno Valley Legend:
Soils Southwest, Inc.
• B-1
P-1
PLOT PLAN AND TEST LOCATIONS
Proposed Office/Warehouse Structure
Heacock Industrial
75542 Heacock Street@ Ironwood Avenue
City of Moreno Valley, California
(Not to Scale)
N.A.P.
,,..
1•·s
_ ,• , , j' - : ·, l
. ..::.: 1]
Approximate Location of Test Borings
Approximate Location of Infiltration Test Boring
August 5, 2020
20022-F
Plate 1