Agenda, regular meeting — Moreno Valley City Council, February 17, 2026 (part 2 of 6)

205

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Treasurer's Cash and Investments Report
Asset Balance (par) Avg YTM (2) Balance Yield Balance Yield Asset Balance (par) Investment
Portfolio (4)
Benchmark 1-5
Gov(5)
Jan 23 384,155,072 2.10% 148,573,248 2.425% 229,475,983 1.67% -3.15% -3.36% Feb 23 396,819,683 2.18% 153,573,248 2.624% 229,652,364 1.75% -3.61% -4.07% Mar 23 385,367,736 2.41% 139,573,248 2.831% 240,071,115 1.81% -0.25% -0.40% Apr 23 392,130,838 2.50% 133,568,086 2.870% 250,640,411 1.89% 1.11% 0.96% May 23 393,035,454 2.59% 117,568,086 2.993% 260,980,803 1.97% 0.10% -0.20% Jun 23 401,600,214 2.89% 124,116,027 3.167% 272,037,037 2.07% 0.25% -0.24% Jul 23 392,167,170 2.92% 107,575,030 3.296% 272,444,923 2.14% -0.17% -0.65% Aug 23 367,750,075 2.97% 84,575,030 3.434% 273,304,577 2.21% 1.22% 0.86% Sep 23 371,172,113 3.16% 93,575,029 3.534% 273,977,067 2.35% 2.56% 2.30% Oct 23 382,761,429 3.22% 99,466,248 3.670% 274,376,978 2.41% 2.89% 2.60% Nov 23 375,964,757 3.31% 97,466,247 3.843% 274,739,732 3.15% 3.31% 2.99% Dec 23 379,752,092 3.34% 97,466,248 3.929% 275,892,133 3.22% 4.70% 4.48% Jan 24 403,275,278 3.28% 102,929,639 4.012% 276,491,973 3.30% 4.11% 3.73% Feb 24 410,683,320 2.68% 57,128,309 5.440% 73,426,639 4.122% 255,895,778 3.18% 4.52% 4.25% Mar 24 406,671,661 2.48% 97,009,278 5.421% 46,944,639 4.232% 256,449,339 3.18% 3.32% 2.68% Apr 24 413,609,042 2.75% 112,466,448 5.403% 51,606,298 4.272% 240,926,798 3.16% 2.18% 1.48% May 24 423,061,594 3.93% 116,998,580 5.394% 54,171,701 4.332% 241,222,841 3.28% 3.52% 2.92% Jun 24 444,453,315 4.14% 143,599,410 5.401% 54,370,062 4.480% 242,404,341 3.36% 4.72% 4.34% Jul 24 433,779,644 4.02% 128,217,474 5.421% 46,591,572 4.516% 243,076,785 3.45% 5.94% 5.53% Aug 24 420,957,381 4.17% 121,778,896 5.408% 51,775,182 4.579% 243,407,598 3.52% 6.72% 6.32% Sep 24 418,778,861 4.23% 123,809,968 5.260% 46,707,596 4.575% 243,803,060 3.52% 8.03% 7.66% Oct 24 411,884,911 4.10% 113,310,716 5.004% 52,916,393 4.518% 244,222,753 3.62% 6.84% 6.44% Nov 24 412,552,657 4.00% 113,759,060 4.827% 49,100,233 4.477% 244,697,572 3.61% 5.65% 5.22% Dec 24 418,699,576 3.83% 104,183,400 4.639% 58,785,636 4.434% 245,458,034 3.50% 3.94% 3.58% Jan 25 428,481,534 3.86% 111,059,998 4.425% 64,046,210 4.366% 246,236,657 3.60% 4.10% 3.72% Feb 25 447,541,157 3.92% 131,471,766 4.143% 64,265,556 4.333% 246,786,521 3.63% 5.76% 5.46% Mar 25 444,986,373 3.90% 127,949,541 4.396% 59,498,844 4.313% 247,193,919 3.72% 5.74% 5.59% Apr 25 451,509,430 3.86% 132,424,572 4.393% 56,708,937 4.281% 247,565,423 3.72% 7.46% 7.39% May 25 456,328,638 3.98% 145,915,559 4.352% 56,914,053 4.272% 248,232,059 3.79% 6.31% 6.10% Jun 25 470,796,401 3.96% 146,436,744 4.343% 65,129,235 4.269% 249,226,311 3.82% 6.43% 6.18% Jul 25 444,023,563 4.02% 128,942,081 4.342% 61,371,067 4.258% 250,237,866 3.84% 4.80% 4.52% Aug 25 450,474,305 4.00% 132,400,157 4.326% 61,591,935 4.251% 251,105,488 3.86% 4.82% 4.56% Sep 25 450,274,063 4.02% 130,358,968 4.273% 61,803,724 4.212% 252,048,653 3.94% 4.17% 3.90% Oct 25 437,104,114 3.98% 112,282,049 4.189% 62,034,465 4.150% 252,623,086 4.01% 5.67% 5.39% Nov 25 437,786,571 3.98% 119,163,994 4.039% 58,236,495 4.096% 253,413,138 4.04% 5.76% 5.46% Dec 25 455,679,227 3.89% 122,564,186 3.877% 68,436,432 4.025% 254,328,872 4.03% 6.13% 5.73% Notes:

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE - 36 MONTH TREND
Period
Total General Portfolio (1) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Chandler Asset Management (CAM) Rate of Return (3) Weighted Avg
YTM (2)
California CLASS
(1) Total General Portfolio includes all assets that comprise the City's Investment Portfolio which is LAIF, California CLASS, as well as assets managed by Chandler Asset Management.(2) Yield to Maturity (YTM): The rate of return on an investment or security if it were to be held until maturity. This yield does not reflect changes in the market value of a security.(4) The Rate of Return for the investment portfolio reflects the performance of the portfolio during the past twelve months.(5) The portfolio benchmark is the ICE Bank of America-Merrill Lynch 1 to 5 year Government Index.(3) Rate of Return represents the gain or loss on an investment or portfolio of investments over a specified period, expressed as a percentage of increase over the initial investment cost. Gains on investments are considered to be any income received from the security or portfolio plus any realized capital gain. This measure of return recognizes the changes in market values of a security or portfolio of securities.

Page
2 206

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Treasurer's Cash and Investments Report
10/1/2023
########
260817451 273977067
0 /S/ Launa Jimenez
45230 2014136

PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS
The portfolio invested in LAIF and California CLASS represents the City's immediate cash liquidity needs and is managed by City staff in a manner to fund the day to day operations of the City.

The portfolio managed by Chandler is comprised of idle cash balances related to funds that generally expect to expend cash with the next 12 to 60 months. 1030507090
110130150170190210230250270290310330350370390410430450
Millions
Portfolio Balances Trend ($)
LAIF Chandler CA Class
$
-6.0%-4.0%-2.0%

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%
Benchmark Comparison
Ice BAML Government 1-5 Index City Portfolio

0.00%0.25%0.50%0.75%1.00%1.25%1.50%1.75%2.00%2.25%2.50%2.75%3.00%3.25%3.50%3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%5.00%5.25%5.50%5.75% Avg Yield to Maturity Trend
LAIF Chandler CA Class
0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Portfolio Balances Trend (%)
LAIF Chandler CA Class

Page 3 ends

207

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Treasurer's Cash and Investments Report
Trustee Bond Description
Investment
Type Issuer Value Date Maturity Date Market Value
Stated
Rate Yield Price
% of of
Portfolio
Wells Fargo 2017 Refunding of the 2007 RDA TABs Money Market WF Government Fund 12/31/2025 1/1/2026 $ 2,336 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 14.29% Wells Fargo 2019 Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric Utility) Money Market WF Government Fund 12/31/2025 1/1/2026 $ 426 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 2.61%Wilmington Trust 2020 Taxable Refunding of the 2013 TRIP COPs Money Market Federated Hermes Gov Fund 12/31/2025 1/1/2026 $ 13,168 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 80.57%Wilmington Trust 2024 Taxable Lease Revenue Refunding Bond Series Money Market Federated Hermes Gov Fund 12/31/2025 1/1/2026 $ - 0.03% 0.03% 0.00 0.00% Wells Fargo 2021 Taxable Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric Utility) Money Market WF Government Fund 12/31/2025 1/1/2026 $ 414 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 2.53% Total $ 16,344 100.00%
Trustee Bond Description Construction fund Debt Service Reserve &
Other Total
Wells Fargo 2017 Refunding of the 2007 RDA TABs $ - $ 2,336 $ - $ 2,336 Wells Fargo 2019 Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric Utility) $ - $ 426 $ - $ 426 Wilmington Trust 2020 Taxable Refunding of the 2013 TRIP COPs $ - $ 13,168 $ - $ 13,168 Wilmington Trust 2024 Taxable Lease Revenue Refunding Bond Series $ - $ - $ - $ - Wells Fargo 2021 Taxable Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric Utility) $ - $ 414 $ - $ 414 Total $ - $ 16,344 $ - $ 16,344

FUNDS WITH FISCAL AGENTS
By Investment Type
By Fund Purpose

Page 4 ends

208

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Treasurer's Cash and Investments Report
Account Name Account Number Investment Issuer Value Date Maturity Date Market Value Stated
Rate Yield Price
% of of
Portfolio
Wells Fargo 2017 Refunding of the 2007 RDA TABs
Income fund 49150300 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 12.46% 2,036 Interest fund 49150301 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Principal fund 49150302 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 1.84% 300 Reserve fund 49150304 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% $ 2,336
Wells Fargo 2019 Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric utility) Revenue fund 83056100 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 2.61% 426 Interest fund 83056101 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Construction fund 83056103 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Reserve Fund 83056105 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% $ 426
Wilmington Trust 2020 Taxable Refunding of the 2013 TRIP COPs Revenue fund 143629-000 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 1.39% 227 Interest fund 143629-001 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 0.01% 2 Principal fund 143629-002 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 16.28% 2,660 Reserve fund 143629-003 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Admin fund 143629-004 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 5.72% 935 Surplus fund 143629-005 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Interest fund 144078-003 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.03% 0.03% 1.00 57.17% 9,344 $ 13,168
Wilmington Trust 2024 Taxable Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Series Revenue fund 171784-000 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Interest fund 171784-001 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.03% 0.03% 0.00 0.00% Principal fund 171784-002 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Redemption FD 171784-003 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Reserve FD 171784-004 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Cost of Issuance 171784-005 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Proceeds 171784-006 Money Market Federated Gov Obl Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% -$
Wells Fargo 2021 Taxable Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds (Electric Utility) Revenue fund 83056107 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 $ 0.02% 0.02% 1.00 2.53% 414 Interest fund 83056108 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Principal fund 83056109 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Reserve fund 83056111 Money Market WF Gov Fund 12/31/25 01/01/26 -$ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00% $ 414
Totals $ 16,344 100.00%
Type Summary of Bond Proceeds with Fiscal Agents
1 Construction Funds -$
2 Principal & Interest Accounts $ 16,344
3 Debt Service Reserve Funds -$
4 Custody Accounts -$
5 Arbitrage Rebate Accounts -$
6 Other Accounts -$
Total Fiscal Agent Funds $ 16,344

FUNDS WITH FISCAL AGENTS
Construction Funds
Total Fiscal Agent Funds
Principal & Interest Accounts
Debt Service Reserve Funds
Custody Accounts
Arbitrage Rebate Accounts
Other Accounts

Page 5 ends

209

MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENT
City of Moreno Valley | As of December 31, 2025
CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT | chandlerasset.com
Information contained herein is confidential. We urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Please see Important Disclosures at the end of the statement.

Chandler Team:

For questions about your account, please call (800) 317-4747, or contact [email protected]
Custodian:

US Bank

Page 6 ends

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Portfolio Characteristics
Sector Allocation
Performance Review
Account Summary
Maturity Distribution
Top Issuers
Credit Quality*
Total Rate of Return** 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS Since Inception (06/01/10)
City of Moreno Valley 0.20% 1.13% 6.13% 6.13% 5.02% 4.91% 1.68% 2.14% 1.98% Benchmark Return 0.19% 1.11% 5.73% 5.73% 4.57% 4.48% 1.34% 1.83% 1.66% Average Modified Duration 2.52
Average Coupon 3.72%
Average Purchase YTM 4.03%
Average Market YTM 3.78%
Average Credit Quality* AA+
Average Final Maturity 2.92
Average Life 2.76
End Values as of
11/30/2025
End Values as of
12/31/2025
Market Value 254,219,154.10 254,829,880.60
Accrued Interest 1,960,383.69 1,851,679.11
Total Market Value 256,179,537.79 256,681,559.71
Income Earned 473,253.97 1,201,255.31
Cont/WD 0.00 0.00
Par 253,413,138.14 254,328,872.18
Book Value 251,384,239.10 252,339,477.71
Cost Value 250,297,103.44 251,195,847.66
United States 44.72%
FHLMC 12.56%
Toyota Motor Corporation 1.93%
International Bank for Recon and Dev 1.88%
Morgan Stanley 1.52%
International Finance Corporation 1.46%
Metropolitan Life Global Funding I 1.38%
Inter-American Development Bank 1.34%
**Periods over 1 year are annualized.

Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index *The average credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch.

Page 7 ends

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Rules Name Limit Actual Compliance
Status Notes

AGENCY MORTGAGE SECURITIES (CMBS)
Max % (MV) 20.0 12.6 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 4.3 Compliant

ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES (ABS)
Max % (MV) 20.0 7.2 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.9 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 4 Compliant
Min Rating (AA- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

BANKERS' ACCEPTANCES
Max % (MV) 40.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Days) 180 0.0 Compliant

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT PLACEMENT SERVICE (CDARS)
Max % (MV) 50.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 0.0 Compliant

COLLATERALIZED BANK DEPOSITS
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 0.0 Compliant

COLLATERALIZED TIME DEPOSITS (NON-NEGOTIABLE
CD/TD)
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 0.0 Compliant

COMMERCIAL PAPER
Max % (MV) 40.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Days) 270 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (A-1 by 1 or A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

CORPORATE MEDIUM TERM NOTES
Max % (MV) 30.0 27.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 1.9 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 4 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

Page 8 ends

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Rules Name Limit Actual Compliance
Status Notes

FDIC INSURED TIME DEPOSITS (NON-NEGOTIABLE CD/
TD)
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant

FEDERAL AGENCIES
Max % (MV) 100.0 1.3 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 2 Compliant

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
Max % (MV) 100.0 0.0 Compliant

MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.5 Compliant
Min Rating (AAA by 2) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (NON-AGENCY)
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (AA- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (CA, LOCAL AGENCY)
Max % (MV) 100.0 0.9 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.9 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 3 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (CA, OTHER STATES)
Max % (MV) 100.0 1.1 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 1.1 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 3 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUTUAL FUNDS
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 10.0 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (AAA by 2) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT (NCD)
Max % (MV) 30.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant

Page 9 ends

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Rules Name Limit Actual Compliance
Status Notes
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (A-1 by 1 or A- by 1 if > FDIC Limit) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS
Max Maturity (Years) 1.0 0.0 Compliant

SUPRANATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Max % (MV) 30.0 4.7 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 4 Compliant
Min Rating (AA- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant
U.S. TREASURIES
Max % (MV) 100.0 44.7 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 4 Compliant

Page 10 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
47800AAC4 JDOT 2022-B A3 3.74
02/16/2027 98,406.50 07/12/20223.77%
98,397.11
98,404.27

99.96 4.07%
98,370.09
163.57

0.04%
(34.17)
Aaa/NA
AAA

1.13 0.12
44934FAD7 HALST 2024-B A3 5.41
05/17/2027 743,761.83 05/14/20245.41%
743,741.15
743,752.32
100.51

4.11%
747,554.27
1,788.33

0.29%
3,801.95
NA/AAA
AAA

1.38 0.37
47800BAC2 JDOT 2022-C A3 5.09
06/15/2027 309,316.66 10/12/20225.15%
309,292.66
309,309.27
100.24

4.16%
310,069.85
699.74

0.12%
760.58
Aaa/NA
AAA

1.45 0.24
36269WAD1 GMALT 2024-2 A3 5.39
07/20/2027 685,168.06 05/07/20245.85%
685,128.26
685,148.68
100.42

4.24%
688,019.05
1,128.43

0.27%
2,870.37
NA/AAA
AAA

1.55 0.34
58770JAD6 MBALT 2024-A A3 5.32
01/18/2028 545,000.00 05/17/20245.73%
544,936.24
544,964.33
100.97

4.03%
550,295.77
1,288.62

0.22%
5,331.44
Aaa/NA
AAA

2.05 0.72
44935WAD9 HALST 2025-A A3 4.83
01/18/2028 1,185,000.00 01/14/20254.83%
1,184,911.24
1,184,939.23
101.01

3.90%
1,196,985.09
2,543.80

0.47%
12,045.86
NA/AAA
AAA

2.05 1.02
161571HT4 CHAIT 2023-1 A 5.16 09/15/2028 2,200,000.00 09/07/2023

5.23%
2,199,390.16
2,199,670.21
100.94

3.83%
2,220,704.20
5,045.33

0.87%
21,033.99
NA/AAA
AAA

2.71 0.68
437930AC4 HAROT 2024-2 A3 5.27
11/20/2028 688,935.54 05/14/20245.27%
688,851.84
688,881.88
101.21

3.84%
697,268.22
1,311.08

0.27%
8,386.34
NA/AAA
AAA

2.89 0.81
096919AD7 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 916,620.30 06/04/20245.18%
916,481.06
916,527.09
100.91

3.98%
924,986.29
791.35

0.36%
8,459.20
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.16 0.73
43813YAC6 HAROT 2024-3 A3 4.57
03/21/2029 1,310,000.00 08/09/20244.66%
1,309,794.20
1,309,855.46
100.76

3.84%
1,319,956.00
1,662.97

0.52%
10,100.54
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.22 0.97
02582JKH2 AMXCA 2024-1 A 5.23
04/16/2029 1,645,000.00 04/16/20245.30%
1,644,662.78
1,644,777.35
101.89

3.75%
1,676,095.44
3,823.71

0.66%
31,318.08
NA/AAA
AAA

3.29 1.22
05522RDJ4 BACCT 2024-1 A 4.93
05/15/2029 1,050,000.00 06/06/20244.93%
1,049,941.10
1,049,959.84
101.57

3.78%
1,066,449.30
2,300.67

0.42%
16,489.47
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.37 1.30
47800DAD6 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23 09/17/2029 1,180,000.00 03/04/2025

5.09%
1,179,925.78
1,179,939.09
100.75

3.85%
1,188,802.80
2,218.40

0.47%
8,863.71
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.71 1.77
92970QAE5 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29
10/15/2029 1,160,000.00 10/17/20244.29%
1,159,827.62
1,159,868.79
100.97

3.76%
1,171,236.92
2,211.73

0.46%
11,368.13
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 1.69
44935CAD3 HART 2025-A A3 4.32
10/15/2029 1,485,000.00 03/04/20254.84%
1,484,780.96
1,484,819.47
100.74

3.90%
1,495,996.43
2,851.20

0.59%
11,176.96
NA/AAA
AAA

3.79 1.61
362955AD8 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029 960,000.00 01/09/20255.03%
959,928.67
959,942.60
101.03

3.89%
969,859.20
1,848.00

0.38%
9,916.60
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.96 1.32
92970QAJ4 WFCIT 2025-1 A 4.34
05/15/2030 1,955,000.00 06/03/20254.33%
1,954,967.55
1,954,971.25
101.33

3.78%
1,980,952.63
3,770.98

0.78%
25,981.38
NA/AAA
AAA

4.37 2.21

Page 11 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total ABS 18,117,208.89 4.98%
18,114,958.37
18,115,731.12
101.03

3.87%
18,303,601.52
35,447.93

7.18%
187,870.41

3.14 1.19
AGENCY
3133EPME2

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT
BANKS FUNDING CORP 3.875
06/08/2028
3,200,000.00 06/06/2023

3.97%
3,186,080.00
3,193,226.67
100.86

3.50%
3,227,606.40
7,922.22

1.27%
34,379.73
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.44 2.30
Total Agency 3,200,000.00 3.97%
3,186,080.00
3,193,226.67
100.86

3.50%
3,227,606.40
7,922.22

1.27%
34,379.73

2.44 2.30

AGENCY CMBS
3137BSP72 FHMS K-058 A2 2.653
08/25/2026 950,000.00 11/12/20211.36%
1,004,736.33
956,754.43

99.14 3.82%
941,863.25
2,100.29

0.37%
(14,891.18)
Aa1/AA+
AAA

0.65 0.59
3137FAWS3 FHMS K-067 A2 3.194
07/25/2027 675,000.00 09/28/20224.42%
640,538.09
664,128.00

99.11 3.69%
668,979.68
1,796.63

0.26%
4,851.67
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.56 1.45
3137FBU79 FHMS K-069 A2 3.187
09/25/2027 1,218,776.85 09/28/20224.37%
1,154,838.67
1,197,092.61

98.93 3.74%
1,205,710.34
3,236.87

0.47%
8,617.73
Aa1/AAA
AA+

1.73 1.61
3137FCLD4 FHMS K-071 A2 3.286
11/25/2027 3,250,000.00 04/13/20234.03%
3,146,914.06
3,208,405.01

99.00 3.75%
3,217,405.75
8,899.58

1.26%
9,000.74
Aa1/AA+
AAA

1.90 1.77
3137FEBQ2 FHMS K-072 A2 3.444
12/25/2027 1,115,000.00 05/05/20233.98%
1,088,910.74
1,104,053.79

99.26 3.75%
1,106,723.36
3,200.05

0.43%
2,669.57
Aa1/AA+
AAA

1.98 1.81
3137FETN0 FHMS K-073 A2 3.35 01/25/2028 2,005,000.00 05/24/2023

4.34%
1,926,992.97
1,971,043.45

99.07 3.75%
1,986,439.72
5,597.29

0.78%
15,396.26
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.07 1.86
3137F4D41 FHMS K-074 A2 3.6 01/25/2028 2,197,721.81 07/25/2023

5.78%
2,097,536.60
2,152,520.82

99.52 3.75%
2,187,240.88
6,593.17

0.86%
34,720.06
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.07 1.89
3137FEZU7 FHMS K-076 A2 3.9 04/25/2028 2,069,000.00 05/05/2023

3.94%
2,062,615.20
2,066,068.28
100.11

3.76%
2,071,215.90
6,724.25

0.81%
5,147.62
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.32 2.09
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 6,200,000.00 --

5.01%
5,899,464.85
6,040,369.46
100.08

3.79%
6,205,208.00
20,150.00

2.44%
164,838.54
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.65 2.45
3137FJKE8 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92 09/25/2028 1,500,000.00 11/28/2023

4.74%
1,446,796.88
1,470,149.86
100.21

3.76%
1,503,097.50
4,900.00

0.59%
32,947.64
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.74 2.48
3137H4BY5 FHMS K-746 A2 2.031
09/25/2028 1,750,000.00 03/21/20244.64%
1,568,164.06
1,640,741.39

95.42 3.81%
1,669,825.50
2,961.88

0.66%
29,084.11
Aa1/AA+
AAA

2.74 2.56
3137H5YC5 FHMS K-748 A2 2.26 01/25/2029 2,500,000.00 04/11/2024

4.94%
2,221,191.41
2,322,443.80

95.51 3.84%
2,387,787.50
4,708.33

0.94%
65,343.70
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.07 2.83

Page 12 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3137FKZZ2 FHMS K-088 A2 3.69 01/25/2029 2,300,000.00 07/29/2024

4.47%
2,226,507.81
2,250,156.29

99.49 3.81%
2,288,219.40
7,072.50

0.90%
38,063.11
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.07 2.78
3137FRUT6 FHMS K-106 A2 2.069
01/25/2030 2,000,000.00 06/06/20254.37%
1,810,078.12
1,833,347.83

92.97 3.95%
1,859,444.00
3,448.33

0.73%
26,096.17
Aa1/AA+
AAA

4.07 3.79
3137FTZQ3 FHMS K-110 A2 1.477
04/25/2030 3,000,000.00 09/03/20253.96%
2,697,304.69
2,718,199.02

90.51 3.97%
2,715,384.00
3,692.50

1.07%
(2,815.02)
Aa1/AA+
AAA

4.31 3.95
Total Agency CMBS 32,730,498.66 4.47%
30,992,590.47
31,595,474.04

97.91 3.80%
32,014,544.76
85,081.67

12.56%
419,070.72

2.63 2.42
CASH
CCYUSD Receivable 2,648.03 -- 2,648.03
2,648.03

1.00 2,648.03

0.00 0.00%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Cash 2,648.03
2,648.03
2,648.03

1.00 2,648.03

0.00 0.00%

0.00 0.00

0.00 CORPORATE
023135BX3 AMAZON.COM INC 1.0
05/12/2026 2,615,000.00 05/10/20211.09%
2,603,703.20
2,614,189.55

99.02 3.74%
2,589,427.92
3,559.31

1.02%
(24,761.64)
A1/AA
AA0.360.36
89236TJK2 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

1.125 06/18/2026 1,785,000.00 06/15/2021

1.13%
1,784,214.60
1,784,927.74

98.79 3.80%
1,763,328.32
725.16

0.69%
(21,599.43)
A1/A+
A+

0.46 0.45
57629WDE7 MASSMUTUAL GLOBAL
FUNDING II 1.2 07/16/2026 1,250,000.00 08/19/20211.15%
1,252,787.50
1,250,305.56

98.54 3.96%
1,231,781.25
6,875.00

0.48%
(18,524.31)
Aa3/AA+
AA+

0.54 0.53
58989V2D5 MET TOWER GLOBAL FUNDING

1.25 09/14/2026 975,000.00 09/07/20211.27%
974,103.00
974,874.24

98.18 3.90%
957,297.90
3,622.40

0.38%
(17,576.34)
Aa3/AAAA0.70

0.68 931142ER0 WALMART INC 1.05 09/17/2026 445,000.00 09/08/2021

1.09%
444,158.95
444,880.71

98.21 3.63%
437,038.95
1,349.83

0.17%
(7,841.76)
Aa2/AA
AA

0.71 0.69
59217GER6 METROPOLITAN LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING I 1.875 01/11/2027 1,575,000.00 01/03/20221.90% 1,573,204.50
1,574,631.26

97.99 3.89%
1,543,405.50
13,945.31

0.61%
(31,225.76)
Aa3/AAAA1.03

0.99 808513BY0 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP 2.45
03/03/2027 1,425,000.00 03/01/2022

2.46%
1,424,601.70
1,424,901.32

98.42 3.84%
1,402,517.78
11,443.54

0.55%
(22,383.55)
A2/AA1.17

1.13 084664CZ2 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FINANCE
CORP 2.3 03/15/2027 2,395,000.00 03/07/20222.30%
2,394,544.95
2,394,890.85

98.42 3.65%
2,357,273.96
16,219.47

0.93%
(37,616.89)
Aa2/AA
A+

1.20 1.16
89115A2U5 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

5.523 07/17/2028 1,000,000.00 07/12/20235.36%
1,006,890.00
1,003,499.68
103.61

4.02%
1,036,057.00
25,160.33

0.41%
32,557.32
A2/AAA2.54

2.31 78016HZS2 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 5.2
08/01/2028 1,750,000.00 09/12/20235.50%
1,727,337.50
1,738,014.17
103.09

3.93%
1,804,136.25
37,916.67

0.71%
66,122.08
A1/A
AA2.592.35

Page 13 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
74456QBX3 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND
GAS CO 3.65 09/01/2028 1,000,000.00 12/14/20234.44%
966,790.00
981,182.93

99.26 3.94%
992,620.00
12,166.67

0.39%
11,437.07
A1/A
NA

2.67 2.48
40139LBH5 GUARDIAN LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING 5.737 10/02/2028 1,000,000.00 11/02/20235.63%
1,004,470.00
1,002,506.89
104.33

4.05%
1,043,326.00
14,183.14

0.41%
40,819.11
Aa1/AA+
NA

2.76 2.50
26442CAX2 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC

3.95 11/15/2028 2,000,000.00 12/06/20234.79%
1,927,120.00
1,957,621.33
100.25

3.86%
2,004,980.00
10,094.44

0.79%
47,358.67
Aa3/A
NA

2.88 2.45
756109BS2 REALTY INCOME CORP 4.7
12/15/2028 1,000,000.00 12/14/20234.71%
999,730.00
999,840.28
101.93

4.00%
1,019,267.00
2,088.89

0.40%
19,426.72
A3/ANA2.96

2.66 66815L2Q1

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
GLOBAL FUNDING 4.71
01/10/2029
1,500,000.00 --

4.67%
1,502,853.80
1,501,726.03
101.77

4.08%
1,526,485.50
33,558.75

0.60%
24,759.47
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.03 2.74
57629W5B2 MASSMUTUAL GLOBAL
FUNDING II 4.85 01/17/2029 1,290,000.00 01/09/20244.85% 1,289,832.30
1,289,897.93
102.04

4.13%
1,316,310.84
28,501.83

0.52%
26,412.91
Aa3/AA+
AA+

3.05 2.75
46647PAM8 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.509
01/23/2029 2,000,000.00 01/18/20245.07%
1,888,580.00
1,942,650.35

99.05 4.28%
1,981,022.00
30,801.22

0.78%
38,371.65
A1/A
AA3.061.93
64952WFF5 NEW YORK LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING 4.7 01/29/2029 1,000,000.00 01/22/20244.74%
998,190.00
998,886.46
101.70

4.10%
1,016,996.00
19,844.44

0.40%
18,109.54
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.08 2.79
69371RS80 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.6
01/31/2029 2,000,000.00 04/09/20244.85%
1,978,760.00
1,986,380.27
101.84

3.96%
2,036,712.00
38,588.89

0.80%
50,331.73
A1/A+
NA

3.08 2.80
756109CF9 REALTY INCOME CORP 4.75
02/15/2029 1,000,000.00 05/21/20245.18%
982,010.00
988,128.06
101.81

4.13%
1,018,068.00
17,944.44

0.40%
29,939.94
A3/ANA3.13

2.76 17275RBR2 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.85
02/26/2029 1,115,000.00 02/21/20244.86%
1,114,609.75
1,114,753.93
102.64

3.95%
1,144,449.38
18,776.91

0.45%
29,695.45
A1/AANA3.16

2.79 89236TMF9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

5.05 05/16/2029 1,000,000.00 05/21/20245.00%
1,002,080.00
1,001,407.63
103.15

4.04%
1,031,505.00
6,312.50

0.40%
30,097.37
A1/A+
A+

3.37 3.07
64952WFG3 NEW YORK LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING 5.0 06/06/2029 1,060,000.00 06/03/20245.04%
1,057,964.80
1,058,604.56
102.62

4.17%
1,087,753.98
3,680.56

0.43%
29,149.42
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.43 3.12
437076DC3 HOME DEPOT INC 4.75
06/25/2029 1,600,000.00 06/18/20244.82%
1,595,280.00
1,596,714.61
102.52

3.97%
1,640,390.40
1,266.67

0.64%
43,675.79
A2/A
A

3.48 3.12
713448FX1 PEPSICO INC 4.5 07/17/2029 1,900,000.00 07/15/2024

4.53%
1,897,055.00
1,897,914.63
101.96

3.90%
1,937,194.40
38,950.00

0.76%
39,279.77
A1/A+
NA

3.54 3.12
171239AL0 CHUBB INA HOLDINGS LLC 4.65
08/15/2029 1,082,000.00 08/12/20244.52%
1,088,113.01
1,086,396.60
102.21

3.99%
1,105,902.46
19,007.13

0.43%
19,505.86
A2/A
A

3.62 3.19
30303M8S4 META PLATFORMS INC 4.3
08/15/2029 1,140,000.00 08/12/20244.33%
1,138,230.18
1,138,718.67
101.20

3.94%
1,153,734.72
18,518.67

0.45%
15,016.05
Aa3/AANA3.62

3.20

Page 14 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
61748UAK8 MORGAN STANLEY 4.133
10/18/2029 1,830,000.00 10/17/20254.25%
1,830,230.10
1,830,215.14

99.97 4.27%
1,829,410.74
14,496.50

0.72%
(804.40)
A1/AA+3.80

2.59 38141GD27 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

4.153 10/21/2029 1,970,000.00 --4.29%
1,970,252.00
1,970,235.45

99.98 4.27%
1,969,558.72
15,908.30

0.77%
(676.73)
A2/BBB+
A

3.80 2.60
00287YBX6 ABBVIE INC 3.2 11/21/2029 1,300,000.00 09/24/2025

4.04%
1,258,712.00
1,261,377.50

96.98 4.05%
1,260,708.80
4,622.22

0.49%
(668.70)
A3/ANA3.89

3.60 14913UAX8 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORP 4.8 01/08/2030 2,255,000.00 01/06/20254.84% 2,250,647.85
2,251,501.12
103.35

3.89%
2,330,607.90
52,015.33

0.91%
79,106.78
A2/A
A+

4.02 3.56
59217GFT1 METROPOLITAN LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING I 4.9 01/09/2030 1,925,000.00 01/02/2025

4.95%
1,921,034.50
1,921,809.79
102.32

4.27%
1,969,621.50
45,066.39

0.77%
47,811.71
Aa3/AAAA4.02

3.54 89236TNA9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.95 01/09/2030 2,070,000.00 01/06/20255.00%
2,065,570.20
2,066,436.27
102.97

4.14%
2,131,406.55
48,955.50

0.84%
64,970.28
A1/A+
A+

4.02 3.54
61747YFK6 MORGAN STANLEY 5.173
01/16/2030 2,000,000.00 01/13/20255.39%
1,984,500.00
1,988,213.21
102.66

4.45%
2,053,134.00
47,419.17

0.81%
64,920.79
A1/AA+4.04

2.73 63743HFX5

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES

COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP

4.95 02/07/2030
2,000,000.00 02/05/2025

4.88%
2,005,746.39
2,004,696.35
102.92

4.17%
2,058,350.00
39,600.00

0.81%
53,653.65
A2/NA
A

4.10 3.55
40139LBK8 GUARDIAN LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING 4.798 04/28/2030 2,000,000.00 08/27/20254.30%
2,041,340.00
2,038,283.17
102.12

4.26%
2,042,338.00
16,793.00

0.80%
4,054.83
Aa1/AA+
NA

4.32 3.85
74153WCW7 PRICOA GLOBAL FUNDING I 4.7
05/28/2030 2,000,000.00 05/21/2025

4.74%
1,996,740.00
1,997,129.20
101.76

4.26%
2,035,272.00
8,616.67

0.80%
38,142.80
Aa3/AAAA4.41

3.93 66815L2W8

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
GLOBAL FUNDING 4.6
06/03/2030
1,500,000.00 06/03/2025

4.58%
1,501,500.00
1,501,326.58
101.47

4.23%
1,522,110.00
5,366.67

0.60%
20,783.42
Aa1/AA+
AAA

4.42 3.96
828807DK0 SIMON PROPERTY GROUP LP

2.65 07/15/2030 2,750,000.00 08/19/20254.32%
2,548,397.50
2,563,489.53

93.64 4.21%
2,575,017.50
33,603.47

1.01%
11,527.97
A3/A
NA

4.54 4.15
24422EYF0 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP

4.375 10/15/2030 2,500,000.00 11/04/20254.22%
2,517,300.00
2,516,753.68
101.05

4.13%
2,526,335.00
23,090.28

0.99%
9,581.32
A1/A
A+

4.79 4.25
141781CF9 CARGILL INC 4.125 10/23/2030 1,360,000.00 10/20/2025

4.14%
1,358,974.05
1,359,013.38

99.57 4.22%
1,354,107.12
10,596.67

0.53%
(4,906.26)
A2/A
NA

4.81 4.29
30303MAB8 META PLATFORMS INC 4.2
11/15/2030 1,500,000.00 11/12/20254.11%
1,506,000.00
1,505,849.41
100.21

4.15%
1,503,169.50
10,150.00

0.59%
(2,679.91)
Aa3/AANA4.87

4.27 665859AY0 NORTHERN TRUST CORP 4.15
11/19/2030 1,500,000.00 11/13/20254.15%
1,499,940.00
1,499,941.41
100.11

4.12%
1,501,624.50
7,262.50

0.59%
1,683.09
A2/A+
A+

4.88 4.36
Total Corporate 68,362,000.00 4.15%
67,874,099.33
68,024,717.45
100.75

4.05%
68,841,754.32
818,664.83

27.01%
817,036.88

3.22 2.79

Page 15 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration

MONEY MARKET
FUND
60934N104 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1,376,516.60 --

3.62%
1,376,516.60
1,376,516.60

1.00 5.17%
1,376,516.60

0.00 0.54%

0.00 Aaa/
AAAm
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Money
Market Fund 1,376,516.60 3.62%
1,376,516.60
1,376,516.60

1.00 5.17%
1,376,516.60

0.00 0.54%

0.00 0.00

0.00 MUNICIPAL
BONDS
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.5
08/01/2029 2,200,000.00 10/30/20244.38%
2,211,594.00
2,208,765.87
102.47

3.76%
2,254,340.00
41,250.00

0.88%
45,574.13
Aa2/AAAA3.58

3.23 882724XQ5 TEXAS STATE 3.0 10/01/2029 3,000,000.00 10/11/2024

4.06%
2,858,880.00
2,893,381.19

97.16 3.82%
2,914,767.00
22,500.00

1.14%
21,385.81
NA/AAA
AAA

3.75 3.48
Total Municipal
Bonds 5,200,000.00 4.20%
5,070,474.00
5,102,147.06

99.48 3.79%
5,169,107.00
63,750.00

2.03%
66,959.94

3.68 3.37

SUPRANATIONAL
4581X0DV7

INTER-AMERICAN
DEVELOPMENT BANK 0.875
04/20/2026
3,435,000.00 04/13/2021

0.97%
3,419,267.70
3,434,060.89

99.14 3.77%
3,405,424.65
5,927.76

1.34%
(28,636.24)
Aaa/AAA
NA

0.30 0.30
45950KCX6 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP

0.75 10/08/2026 3,800,000.00 11/08/20211.14%
3,728,332.00
3,788,808.12

97.79 3.70%
3,716,050.40
6,570.83

1.46%
(72,757.72)
Aaa/AAA
NA

0.77 0.75
459058LN1

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029
2,250,000.00 12/12/2024

4.25%
2,213,370.00
2,221,325.84
100.70

3.68%
2,265,745.50
18,157.50

0.89%
44,419.66
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.79 3.47
459058LR2

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.125 03/20/2030
2,500,000.00 03/14/2025

4.20%
2,491,500.00
2,492,835.98
101.49

3.74%
2,537,202.50
28,932.29

1.00%
44,366.52
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.22 3.80
Total
Supranational 11,985,000.00 2.33%
11,852,469.70
11,937,030.83

99.52 3.72%
11,924,423.05
59,588.39

4.68%
(12,607.78)

1.94 1.79

US TREASURY
91282CCZ2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.875
09/30/2026 1,780,000.00 10/18/20211.19%
1,753,369.53
1,775,991.43

98.03 3.59%
1,744,877.04
3,979.33

0.68%
(31,114.39)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.75 0.73

Page 16 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CLY5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
11/30/2026 2,500,000.00 12/20/20244.28%
2,498,437.50
2,499,264.06
100.61

3.56%
2,515,315.00
9,340.66

0.99%
16,050.94
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.91 0.88
91282CDK4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.25
11/30/2026 3,500,000.00 12/16/20211.17%
3,512,714.84
3,502,340.54

97.95 3.56%
3,428,337.50
3,846.15

1.35%
(74,003.04)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.91 0.89
91282CME8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
12/31/2026 7,500,000.00 --4.28%
7,495,996.09
7,497,983.67
100.70

3.53%
7,552,320.00
880.52

2.96%
54,336.33
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.00 0.97
912828Z78 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.5
01/31/2027 1,150,000.00 02/07/20221.77%
1,135,355.47
1,146,818.16

97.86 3.54%
1,125,427.95
7,218.75

0.44%
(21,390.21)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.08 1.05
91282CET4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.625
05/31/2027 1,800,000.00 06/09/2022

3.07%
1,763,367.19
1,789,611.29

98.80 3.50%
1,778,484.60
4,153.85

0.70%
(11,126.69)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.41 1.37
91282CEW7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.25
06/30/2027 2,975,000.00 --3.12%
2,993,090.82
2,980,448.16

99.66 3.49%
2,964,774.93
267.09

1.16%
(15,673.24)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.50 1.45
91282CFB2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.75
07/31/2027 900,000.00 08/22/20223.12%
884,742.19
895,125.62

98.87 3.49%
889,839.90
10,357.34

0.35%
(5,285.72)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.58 1.51
91282CFH9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.125
08/31/2027 3,150,000.00 --3.41%
3,109,707.03
3,136,505.34

99.43 3.48%
3,131,912.70
33,447.00

1.23%
(4,592.64)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.67 1.58
91282CFM8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
09/30/2027 3,900,000.00 10/20/20224.45%
3,843,632.81
3,880,063.35
101.07

3.48%
3,941,741.70
41,102.68

1.55%
61,678.35
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.75 1.65
91282CFZ9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
11/30/2027 1,250,000.00 12/05/20223.81%
1,253,906.25
1,251,498.11
100.71

3.49%
1,258,886.25
4,258.24

0.49%
7,388.14
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.91 1.82
91282CGC9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
12/31/2027 3,350,000.00 --3.71%
3,375,494.14
3,360,300.62
100.75

3.48%
3,374,994.35
358.60

1.32%
14,693.73
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.00 1.91
91282CGH8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
01/31/2028 5,000,000.00 --3.84%
4,923,765.63
4,967,858.50
100.02

3.49%
5,000,975.00
73,233.70

1.96%
33,116.50
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.08 1.96
91282CGP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/29/2028 5,000,000.00 --4.08%
4,981,033.20
4,991,846.68
101.04

3.49%
5,052,150.00
67,955.80

1.98%
60,303.32
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.16 2.03
91282CHE4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
05/31/2028 3,000,000.00 06/14/20234.00%
2,950,429.69
2,975,832.07
100.26

3.51%
3,007,851.00
9,560.44

1.18%
32,018.93
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.42 2.28
91282CHQ7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
07/31/2028 4,000,000.00 08/21/20234.46%
3,941,718.75
3,969,583.97
101.49

3.51%
4,059,688.00
69,048.91

1.59%
90,104.03
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.58 2.39
91282CHX2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
08/31/2028 1,100,000.00 09/25/20234.62%
1,088,398.44
1,093,732.19
102.11

3.53%
1,123,246.30
16,351.86

0.44%
29,514.11
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.67 2.46
91282CJF9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.875
10/31/2028 1,700,000.00 10/27/20234.79%
1,706,441.41
1,703,645.55
103.54

3.54%
1,760,231.00
14,194.06

0.69%
56,585.45
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.84 2.61
91282CJN2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
11/30/2028 1,400,000.00 12/28/2023

3.83%
1,434,125.00
1,420,194.10
102.27

3.55%
1,431,773.00
5,384.62

0.56%
11,578.90
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.92 2.71

Page 17 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CJR3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
12/31/2028 4,500,000.00 --3.99%
4,452,480.47
4,471,312.82
100.57

3.55%
4,525,488.00
466.16

1.78%
54,175.18
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.00 2.81
91282CJW2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
01/31/2029 2,500,000.00 02/16/20244.31%
2,465,625.00
2,478,567.97
101.27

3.56%
2,531,835.00
41,847.83

0.99%
53,267.03
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.08 2.83
91282CKG5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
03/31/2029 5,000,000.00 --4.59%
4,897,460.94
4,932,889.78
101.66

3.58%
5,082,815.00
52,695.74

1.99%
149,925.22
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.25 2.99
91282CKP5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
04/30/2029 2,000,000.00 05/03/20244.48%
2,012,773.44
2,008,527.32
103.23

3.58%
2,064,610.00
15,842.54

0.81%
56,082.68
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.33 3.05
91282CKT7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.5
05/31/2029 1,600,000.00 06/21/2024

4.26%
1,617,187.50
1,611,884.36
102.88

3.60%
1,646,000.00
6,329.67

0.65%
34,115.64
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.41 3.13
91282CKX8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
06/30/2029 2,000,000.00 07/18/20244.09%
2,014,140.63
2,009,985.30
102.11

3.60%
2,042,266.00
234.81

0.80%
32,280.70
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.50 3.23
91282CLK5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2029 4,000,000.00 09/11/20243.45%
4,031,406.25
4,023,177.92

99.98 3.63%
3,999,376.00
49,267.96

1.57%
(23,801.92)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.67 3.36
91282CLN9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
09/30/2029 2,500,000.00 10/04/20243.76%
2,470,312.50
2,477,673.17

99.54 3.63%
2,488,380.00
22,355.77

0.98%
10,706.83
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.75 3.45
91282CMA6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
11/30/2029 2,500,000.00 12/20/20244.36%
2,474,511.72
2,479,798.81
101.73

3.65%
2,543,165.00
9,065.93

1.00%
63,366.19
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.91 3.58
91282CMD0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
12/31/2029 3,500,000.00 01/10/20254.53%
3,476,347.66
3,480,952.89
102.67

3.65%
3,593,516.50
423.00

1.41%
112,563.61
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.00 3.65
91282CGQ8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/28/2030 2,800,000.00 --4.02%
2,797,453.12
2,797,860.66
101.27

3.67%
2,835,655.20
38,055.25

1.11%
37,794.54
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.16 3.75
91282CGS4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
03/31/2030 5,000,000.00 --3.87%
4,947,363.29
4,954,033.49

99.81 3.67%
4,990,625.00
46,308.38

1.96%
36,591.51
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.25 3.86
91282CNG2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
05/31/2030 2,500,000.00 05/29/20254.00%
2,499,511.72
2,499,568.74
101.27

3.68%
2,531,835.00
8,791.21

0.99%
32,266.26
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.41 4.00
91282CNK3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
06/30/2030 3,500,000.00 07/09/20253.95%
3,487,968.75
3,489,128.15
100.75

3.69%
3,526,386.50
374.65

1.38%
37,258.35
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.50 4.09
91282CNX5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2030 5,500,000.00 --3.70%
5,481,328.13
5,482,460.16

99.64 3.71%
5,480,447.50
67,743.44

2.15%
(2,012.66)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.67 4.20
91282CPD7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
10/31/2030 6,000,000.00 --3.73%
5,971,640.62
5,972,482.79

99.58 3.72%
5,974,686.00
37,251.38

2.34%
2,203.21
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.83 4.36
91282CPN5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030 3,000,000.00 12/03/20253.63%
2,982,773.44
2,983,038.17

98.99 3.73%
2,969,766.00
9,230.77

1.17%
(13,272.17)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.91 4.45
Total US Treasury 113,355,000.00 3.85%
112,726,011.16
112,991,985.93
100.56

3.58%
113,969,678.92
781,224.08

44.72%
977,692.99

2.91 2.68

Page 18 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total Portfolio 254,328,872.18 4.03%
251,195,847.66
252,339,477.71

99.71 3.78%
254,829,880.60
1,851,679.11
100.00%
2,490,402.89

2.92 2.52
Total Market Value
+ Accrued 256,681,559.71

Page 19 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 12/01/2025 60934N104 2,611,531.25 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.87% (2,611,531.25) 0.00 (2,611,531.25) 0.00 Purchase 12/02/2025 60934N104 7,838.06 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.86% (7,838.06) 0.00 (7,838.06) 0.00
Purchase 12/03/2025 60934N104 34,500.00 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.78% (34,500.00) 0.00 (34,500.00) 0.00
Purchase 12/04/2025 91282CPN5 3,000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.5 11/30/2030 99.426 3.63% (2,982,773.44) (1,153.85) (2,983,927.29) 0.00 Purchase 12/08/2025 60934N104 26,500.00 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.77% (26,500.00) 0.00 (26,500.00) 0.00
Purchase 12/08/2025 60934N104 62,000.00 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.77% (62,000.00) 0.00 (62,000.00) 0.00
Purchase 12/15/2025 60934N104 92,720.87 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.65% (92,720.87) 0.00 (92,720.87) 0.00
Purchase 12/15/2025 60934N104 103,972.05 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.65% (103,972.05) 0.00 (103,972.05) 0.00
Purchase 12/16/2025 60934N104 13,021.20 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.65% (13,021.20) 0.00 (13,021.20) 0.00
Purchase 12/18/2025 60934N104 10,040.63 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.61% (10,040.63) 0.00 (10,040.63) 0.00
Purchase 12/18/2025 60934N104 24,182.54 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.61% (24,182.54) 0.00 (24,182.54) 0.00
Purchase 12/22/2025 60934N104 66,411.58 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.59% (66,411.58) 0.00 (66,411.58) 0.00
Purchase 12/26/2025 60934N104 74,364.13 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.59% (74,364.13) 0.00 (74,364.13) 0.00
Purchase 12/26/2025 60934N104 70,627.03 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.59% (70,627.03) 0.00 (70,627.03) 0.00
Purchase 12/31/2025 60934N104 543,875.00 FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.62% (543,875.00) 0.00 (543,875.00) 0.00
Total Purchase 6,741,584.34 (6,724,357.78) (1,153.85) (6,725,511.63) 0.00

Page 20 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
TOTAL
ACQUISITIONS 6,741,584.34 (6,724,357.78) (1,153.85) (6,725,511.63) 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Sale 12/01/2025 60934N104 (62,000.00) FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.87% 62,000.00 0.00 62,000.00 0.00
Sale 12/04/2025 60934N104 (2,983,927.29) FEDERATED HRMS GV O INST 1.000 3.78% 2,983,927.29 0.00 2,983,927.29 0.00
Total Sale (3,045,927.29) 3,045,927.29 0.00 3,045,927.29 0.00 TOTAL
DISPOSITIONS (3,045,927.29) 3,045,927.29 0.00 3,045,927.29 0.00 OTHER

TRANSACTIONS
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137F4D41 0.00 FHMS K-074 A2 3.6
01/25/2028 5.78% 6,600.00 0.00 6,600.00 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FJEH8 0.00 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9
08/25/2028 5.01% 20,150.00 0.00 20,150.00 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137H5YC5 0.00 FHMS K-748 A2 2.26
01/25/2029 4.94% 4,708.33 0.00 4,708.33 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FJKE8 0.00 FHMS K-082 A2 3.92
09/25/2028 4.74% 4,900.00 0.00 4,900.00 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137H4BY5 0.00 FHMS K-746 A2 2.031
09/25/2028 4.64% 2,961.88 0.00 2,961.88 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FKZZ2 0.00 FHMS K-088 A2 3.69
01/25/2029 4.47% 7,072.50 0.00 7,072.50 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FAWS3 0.00 FHMS K-067 A2 3.194
07/25/2027 4.42% 1,796.63 0.00 1,796.63 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FBU79 0.00 FHMS K-069 A2 3.187
09/25/2027 4.37% 3,242.78 0.00 3,242.78 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FRUT6 0.00 FHMS K-106 A2 2.069
01/25/2030 4.37% 3,448.33 0.00 3,448.33 0.00

Page 21 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FETN0 0.00 FHMS K-073 A2 3.35
01/25/2028 4.34% 5,597.29 0.00 5,597.29 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FCLD4 0.00 FHMS K-071 A2 3.286
11/25/2027 4.03% 8,899.58 0.00 8,899.58 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FEBQ2 0.00 FHMS K-072 A2 3.444
12/25/2027 3.98% 3,200.05 0.00 3,200.05 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FTZQ3 0.00 FHMS K-110 A2 1.477
04/25/2030 3.96% 3,692.50 0.00 3,692.50 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137FEZU7 0.00 FHMS K-076 A2 3.9
04/25/2028 3.94% 6,724.25 0.00 6,724.25 0.00
Coupon 12/01/2025 3137BSP72 0.00 FHMS K-058 A2 2.653
08/25/2026 1.36% 2,100.29 0.00 2,100.29 0.00
Coupon 12/03/2025 66815L2W8 0.00

NORTHWESTERN

MUTUAL GLOBAL
FUNDING 4.6 06/03/2030

4.58% 34,500.00 0.00 34,500.00 0.00
Coupon 12/06/2025 64952WFG3 0.00 NEW YORK LIFE GLOBAL
FUNDING 5.0 06/06/2029 5.04% 26,500.00 0.00 26,500.00 0.00 Coupon 12/08/2025 3133EPME2 0.00

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

3.875 06/08/2028

3.97% 62,000.00 0.00 62,000.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 58770JAD6 0.00 MBALT 2024-A A3 5.32
01/18/2028 5.73% 2,416.17 0.00 2,416.17 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 44934FAD7 0.00 HALST 2024-B A3 5.41
05/17/2027 5.41% 3,651.75 0.00 3,651.75 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 02582JKH2 0.00 AMXCA 2024-1 A 5.23
04/16/2029 5.30% 7,169.46 0.00 7,169.46 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 161571HT4 0.00 CHAIT 2023-1 A 5.16
09/15/2028 5.23% 9,460.00 0.00 9,460.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 47800BAC2 0.00 JDOT 2022-C A3 5.09
06/15/2027 5.15% 1,450.43 0.00 1,450.43 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 47800DAD6 0.00 JDOT 2025 A3 4.23
09/17/2029 5.09% 4,159.50 0.00 4,159.50 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 05522RDJ4 0.00 BACCT 2024-1 A 4.93
05/15/2029 4.93% 4,313.75 0.00 4,313.75 0.00

Page 22 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Coupon 12/15/2025 44935CAD3 0.00 HART 2025-A A3 4.32
10/15/2029 4.84% 5,346.00 0.00 5,346.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 44935WAD9 0.00 HALST 2025-A A3 4.83
01/18/2028 4.83% 4,769.63 0.00 4,769.63 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 756109BS2 0.00 REALTY INCOME CORP 4.7 12/15/2028 4.71% 23,500.00 0.00 23,500.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 92970QAJ4 0.00 WFCIT 2025-1 A 4.34
05/15/2030 4.33% 7,070.58 0.00 7,070.58 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 92970QAE5 0.00 WFCIT 2024-2 A 4.29
10/15/2029 4.29% 4,147.00 0.00 4,147.00 0.00
Coupon 12/15/2025 47800AAC4 0.00 JDOT 2022-B A3 3.74
02/16/2027 3.77% 369.03 0.00 369.03 0.00
Coupon 12/16/2025 362955AD8 0.00 GMCAR 2025-1 A3 4.62
12/17/2029 5.03% 3,696.00 0.00 3,696.00 0.00
Coupon 12/16/2025 362585AC5 0.00 GMCAR 2022-2 A3 3.1
02/16/2027 3.13% 24.03 0.00 24.03 0.00
Coupon 12/18/2025 437930AC4 0.00 HAROT 2024-2 A3 5.27
11/20/2028 5.27% 3,118.08 0.00 3,118.08 0.00
Coupon 12/18/2025 89236TJK2 0.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORP 1.125 06/18/2026 1.13% 10,040.63 0.00 10,040.63 0.00 Coupon 12/20/2025 36269WAD1 0.00 GMALT 2024-2 A3 5.39
07/20/2027 5.85% 3,338.44 0.00 3,338.44 0.00
Coupon 12/21/2025 43813YAC6 0.00 HAROT 2024-3 A3 4.57
03/21/2029 4.66% 4,988.92 0.00 4,988.92 0.00
Coupon 12/25/2025 096919AD7 0.00 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18
02/26/2029 5.18% 4,014.50 0.00 4,014.50 0.00
Coupon 12/25/2025 437076DC3 0.00 HOME DEPOT INC 4.75
06/25/2029 4.82% 38,000.00 0.00 38,000.00 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CMD0 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.375 12/31/2029 4.53% 76,562.50 0.00 76,562.50 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CME8 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.25 12/31/2026 4.28% 159,375.00 0.00 159,375.00 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CKX8 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.25 06/30/2029 4.09% 42,500.00 0.00 42,500.00 0.00

Page 23 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CJR3 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.75 12/31/2028 3.99% 84,375.00 0.00 84,375.00 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CNK3 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 06/30/2030 3.95% 67,812.50 0.00 67,812.50 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CGC9 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 12/31/2027 3.71% 64,906.25 0.00 64,906.25 0.00
Coupon 12/31/2025 91282CEW7 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.25 06/30/2027 3.12% 48,343.75 0.00 48,343.75 0.00
Total Coupon 0.00 897,013.31 0.00 897,013.31 0.00
Dividend 12/31/2025 60934N104 0.00 FEDERATED HRMS GV O
INST 3.67% 2,648.03 0.00 2,648.03 0.00
Total Dividend 0.00 2,648.03 0.00 2,648.03 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/01/2025 3137F4D41 2,278.19 FHMS K-074 A2 3.6 01/25/2028 5.78% 2,278.19 -- 2,278.19 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/01/2025 3137FBU79 2,224.35 FHMS K-069 A2 3.187 09/25/2027 4.37% 2,224.35 -- 2,224.35 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/15/2025 44934FAD7 66,238.17 HALST 2024-B A3 5.41 05/17/2027 5.41% 66,238.17 -- 66,238.17 (0.00)
Principal Paydown 12/15/2025 47800BAC2 32,631.70 JDOT 2022-C A3 5.09 06/15/2027 5.15% 32,631.70 -- 32,631.70 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/15/2025 47800AAC4 19,999.75 JDOT 2022-B A3 3.74 02/16/2027 3.77% 19,999.75 -- 19,999.75 (0.00)
Principal Paydown 12/16/2025 362585AC5 9,301.17 GMCAR 2022-2 A3 3.1 02/16/2027 3.13% 9,301.17 -- 9,301.17 (0.02)
Principal Paydown 12/18/2025 437930AC4 21,064.46 HAROT 2024-2 A3 5.27 11/20/2028 5.27% 21,064.46 -- 21,064.46 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/20/2025 36269WAD1 58,084.22 GMALT 2024-2 A3 5.39 07/20/2027 5.85% 58,084.22 -- 58,084.22 0.00
Principal Paydown 12/25/2025 096919AD7 13,379.71 BMWOT 2024-A A3 5.18 02/26/2029 5.18% 13,379.71 -- 13,379.71 0.01
Total Principal
Paydown 225,201.72 225,201.72 -- 225,201.72 (0.01)

Page 24 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction Type Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price
Acq/
Disp
Yield
Amount Interest Pur/
Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

TOTAL OTHER
TRANSACTIONS 225,201.72 1,124,863.06 0.00 1,124,863.06 (0.01)

Page 25 ends

229
DAX

FTSE (UK)
Nikkei
S&P 500
NASDAQ
Hang Seng

DOW JONES
World Stock Market Indices
The near-term economic outlook continues to be distorted by the data delays from the government shutdown. Recently released government data—reflecting conditions from two to three months ago—indicate inflation remains moderately above the Federal Reserve’s target, while labor market conditions have continued to soften. As the flow of economic data normalizes, the Chandler team expects further yield curve steepening as the Federal Reserve moves the policy rate toward a more neutral range. U.S. trade and fiscal policy also remain sources of elevated market uncertainty.

The Federal Reserve’s December Federal Open Market Committee meeting concluded with the third consecutive 25-basis-point rate cut in 2025, lowering the target range to

3.50%–3.75%. However, policymakers remain divided on the path forward. Four Fed governors project one additional 25-basis-point cut in 2026, another four anticipate no further easing, eight expect multiple cuts, and three call for a potential rate hike. Chair Jerome Powell noted that the Fed is now “well placed to wait and see” how labor market conditions and inflation evolve in the near term.

The US Treasury yield curve steepened slightly in November, as the 2-year Treasury yield dropped 9 basis points to 3.49%, the 5-year Treasury was down 9 basis points to 3.60%, and the 10-year Treasury yield was 6 basis points lower at 4.02%. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was 2 basis points wider from October at +52 basis points at November month-end. The spread between the 2-year Treasury and 10-year Treasury yield one year ago was 2 basis points. The spread between the 3-month and 10-year Treasury yield points on the curve was +21 basis points in November versus +26 basis points in October.

After market expectations shifted away from another rate cut following the government shutdown, the FOMC ultimately delivered its third cut of the year at the December meeting. In total, the three cuts in 2025 reduced the federal funds rate by 75 basis points, bringing the target range to 3.50%–3.75%. The yield curve subsequently steepened, with markets also pricing in at least one additional 25-basis-point cut in the first half of 2026. The past year’s developments have aligned with the Chandler team’s view that lower short-term rates would lead to a steeper curve. We expect this steepening trend to continue into the first half of 2026, though likely at a more moderate pace.

Market Summary

BOND MARKET REVIEW
A M o n t h l y R e v i e w o f F i x e d I n c o m e M a r k e t s December 2025
(Japan)
(Germany)
(Hong Kong)
TREASURY YIELDS Trend 11/28/25 10/31/2025 Change
Chandler Asset Management | 800.317.4747 | chandlerasset.com | 6,849.09
9,720.51
23,365.69
47,716.42
23,836.79
25,585.89

8.89 3.26 (47.76) (359.27) (121.51) 153.55 data as of 11/28/2025 Change
(10/31/2025)

0.13% 0.03% (0.51%) Source: Bloomberg. Please see
descriptions of indices on Page 2.

0.32% (1.51%)
%CHG
(0.18%) 3-Month
2-Year
3-Year
5-Year
7-Year
10-Year
30-Year

3.80 3.49

3.49 3.60

3.79 4.02

4.66 (0.02)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.08)
(0.06)

0.01 Source: Bloomberg
Market Data
Toll Free: 800.317.4747
[email protected]
chandlerasset.com
Source: Bloomberg
(▲/▼)
▼
U.S. Treasury Yields
50,253.91
(2,157.43) (4.12%) 3.82

3.58 3.58

3.69 3.87

4.08 4.65
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼

Page 26 ends

230
Economic Roundup

ECONOMIC INDICATOR
Trade Balance
Gross Domestic Product
Unemployment Rate
Prime Rate
Refinitiv/CoreCommodity CRB Index
Oil (West Texas Int.)
Consumer Price Index (y/o/y)
Producer Price Index (y/o/y)
Euro/Dollar
(81.50) $B SEP. 30

3.30% SEP. 30

4.20% NOV. 30

7.75% NOV. 29
286.94 NOV. 29
$68.72 NOV. 27

2.70% NOV. 30
(0.80%) SEP. 30

1.06 NOV. 29
Crude oil prices decreased in November
Credit spreads were wider in November

CREDIT SPREADS
3-month top rated commercial paper
2-year A corporate note
5-year A corporate note
5-year Agency note
Spread to Treasuries

0.07 0.37

0.57 0.04
One Month Ago

0.04 0.37

0.56 0.04
Change

0.03 -

0.01 (0.01)
Chandler Asset Management | 800.317.4747 | chandlerasset.com | Housing Starts
Government provided U.S. housing starts data remain delayed due to the October government shutdown, with releases now expected to resume in January 2026. The latest available S&P Cotality Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index rose 1.4% year over year in September, easing from a 1.6% increase in August and signaling further cooling in price appreciation. All 20 metro areas posted monthover-month declines before seasonal adjustment, underscoring broad-based softening as elevated mortgage rates continue to pressure affordability and demand. Existing home sales edged higher in November to a pace of 4.13 million units, reflecting only modest momentum despite recent rate relief. The Freddie Mac 30-year fixed mortgage rate averaged 6.23% at November month end.

Labor Market
The latest labor market data included the Nonfarm Payrolls reports for both October and November. October showed unexpected weakness, with payrolls down by 105,000 jobs—largely reflecting the removal of thousands of federal employees who accepted deferred resignation offers under the Trump administration. In November, payrolls partially rebounded with a gain of 64,000 jobs, though the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6%.

Retail Sales
October Retail Sales, released with a one-month delay, were flat from the prior month but up 3.5% year over year. Eight of thirteen major categories posted gains, while motor vehicle sales declined following the expiration of federal tax incentives for electric vehicles, and gas station sales weakened amid lower fuel prices. The government shutdown may have weighed on consumer confidence regarding jobs, incomes, and overall financial conditions, both current and in the future. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index fell 6.8 points in November to 88.7 from 95.5 in October, marking its lowest level since April.

Consumer Prices
Inflation came in lower than expected in November, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rising 2.7% year over year and core CPI easing to 2.6%. Notably, both Owners’ Equivalent Rent and Rent of Primary Residence contributed to the slowdown in services inflation. Shelter costs typically lag broader market trends by 12 to 18 months. Services, meanwhile, have remained the dominant driver of inflation throughout the post-pandemic period.

BOND MARKET REVIEW
World Stock Market Index Descriptions
S&P 500–The S&P 500 is a market value-weighted index of 500 large-capitalization stocks. The 500 companies included in the index capture approximately 80% of available US market capitalization.

NASDAQ–The NASDAQ Composite Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 3.300 common stocks listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Dow Jones–The Dow Jones Industrial Average is an index that tracks 30 large, publicly-owned companies trading on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. The Financial Times Stock Exchange Group (FTSE)–The FTSE is a share index of the 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalization. DAX–The Deutscher Aktienindex (DAX) is a blue chip stock market index consisting of the 30 major German companies trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Hang Seng–The Hang Seng Index is a freefloat-adjusted market-capitalization- weighted stock market index in Hong Kong.

It is used to record and monitor daily changes of the largest companies of the Hong Kong stock market and is the main indicator of overall market performance in Hong Kong. Nikkei–Japan's Nikkei 225 Stock Average is a price-weighted index composed of Japan's top 225 blue-chip companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. © 2025 Chandler Asset Management, Inc. An independent, SEC-registered investment adviser. Data source: Bloomberg, Federal Reserve, and the US Department of Labor. This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change. This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as an indicator of future results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This report is not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment. Fixed income investments are subject to interest rate, credit, and market risk. Interest rate risk: The value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise.

Credit risk: the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal. Low-rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk.

Market risk: the bond market, in general, could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates. The S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller home price index tracks monthly changes in the value of residential real estate in 20 metropolitan regions across the nation.

Source: Bloomberg
Source: Bloomberg
Data as of 9/30/2025
Since 1988, Chandler
Asset Management
has specialized in
providing fixed
income investment
solutions to risk-averse
public agencies and
institutions. Chandler’s
mission is to provide
fully customizable clientcentered portfolio
management that
preserves principal,
mitigates risk, and
generates income in
our clients’ portfolios.

Current Release
(59.27) $B AUG. 31

3.80% JUN. 30

4.40% SEP. 30

7.00% OCT. 31
302.54 OCT. 31
$60.98 OCT. 31

3.00% SEP. 30

1.90% AUG. 31

1.15 OCT. 31
Prior Release
(52.83) $B SEP. 30

4.30% SEP. 30

4.60% NOV. 30

7.00% NOV. 28
301.49 NOV. 28
$58.58 NOV. 28

2.70% NOV. 28

3.30% SEP. 30

1.16 NOV. 28
One Year Ago

Page 27 ends

231
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0060 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council Acting in its Capacity as
President and Members of the Board of Directors of
the Moreno Valley Community Services District (CSD)
FROM: Felicia London, Chief Financial Officer/ City Treasurer AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS INTO CFD NO.
2021-01 (PARKS MAINTENANCE) (REPORT OF:

FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES)
(DISTRICTS: 1, 2, 3)
TITLE SUMMARY: Pursuant to Landowner Petitions, Annex Certain Parcels into Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks
Maintenance) (Reso No. CSD 2026-___)
DISTRICT: District 1, 2, 3
Recommendation(s)
That the CSD:

1. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2026-__, a Resolution of Board of Directors of the Moreno Valley Community Services District, ordering the annexation of territory to Moreno Valley Community Services District Community Facilities No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) and approving the amended maps for said District, for the specific properties as listed in the Discussion section of this staff report and as previously approved by the Landowner and certified by the City’s Election Official (Amendment Nos. 318-320 and 322-324).

SUMMARY
Adoption of this resolution (Attachment 1) will certify the annexation of 6 parcels into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) (“District”). This action impacts only the property owners identified below, not the general citizens or 232
ID: 26-0060 Page 2
taxpayers of the City.

DISCUSSION
As a condition of approval for development projects, the property owners are required to provide an ongoing funding source for maintenance of certain public facilities (e.g., parks).

The funding mitigates the cost of the impacts created by the proposed development.

On June 1, 2021, the CSD Board formed CFD No. 2021-01, pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. The District was created to provide the development community with an alternative funding tool to mitigate the impacts of their proposed development. If a property owner elects to annex the parcels of their development into the District, they also authorize the CSD annually levy a special tax, collected on the annual property tax bill, against property in the development project. Thus, satisfying the condition of approval.

On December 21, 2021, the CSD Board adopted Ordinance No. 56, which designated the entire territory of the City as a future annexation area for the District. With the future annexation area designated, annexations can occur without an additional public hearing as long as the annexing landowner provides unanimous consent. Once annexed, parcels are subject to the annual special tax to fund the service they are receiving.

An applicant has two options to satisfy the condition(s) of approval:

1. The property owner submits a Landowner Petition unanimously approving annexation of the property into the District. Approval of the petition and special tax rate allows the City to annually levy the special tax on the property tax bill of the property. This option is only available if there are fewer than 12 registered voters living within the proposed annexation area; or

2. The applicant funds an endowment in an amount sufficient to yield an annual revenue stream that meets the annual obligation and provides for the ongoing operation and maintenance of parks facilities.

Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No.

APN Location
Juana E. Paredes
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0199/BFR25-0185
318 481-064-028 24633 Singer St.

Yesenia Perez
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0219/BFR25-0131
319 479-402-018 25806 Sweetleaf St.

Jaime Jimenez Aviles Sr.

Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0210/BFR25-0129
320 264-302-034 23015 Seabrook Ln.
233
ID: 26-0060 Page 3
Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No.

APN Location
Wei & Zhou Living Trust Dated 03/16/23,
Junhua Wei, and Siyian Zhou
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0147/BFR24-0198
322 292-054-014 12638 Valley Meadows Dr.

Pedro Gomez, Maria del Carmen Gomez,
and Vanessa Gomez
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP26-0004/BFR25-0197
323 479-253-009 13481 Gold Pl.

Salvador Michel and
Mariana Gabriela Torres
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0215/BFR23-0070
324 479-090-012 25241 Eucalyptus Ave.

The Property Owners listed above elected to annex their property into CFD No. 2021-01 and have the special tax applied to their annual property tax bill. The office of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters confirmed the number of registered voters residing at each property, allowing a special election of the landowner. Adoption of the resolution (Attachment 1) amends the District and adds the property to the tax rate area identified in the Fiscal Impact section of this report. The resolution also directs the recordation of the boundary maps (included within the resolution) and amended notice of special tax liens for the amendments. The Election Official confirmed the Property Owners unanimously approved the annexation of their property into the District (Attachment 2).

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the resolution. Staff recommends this alternative since it will annex the properties into CFD No. 2021-01 at the request of the Property Owners and satisfy the condition of approval for the proposed developments.

2. Do not adopt the resolution. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it is contrary to the request of the Property Owners, will not satisfy the condition of approval, and may delay development of the projects.

3. Do not adopt the resolution but rather continue the item to a future regular scheduled City Council meeting. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay the Property Owners from satisfying the condition of approval and may delay development of the projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
Revenue received from the special tax is restricted and can only be used to fund the services for each tax rate area within the District. The special tax can only be applied to a property tax bill of a parcel wherein the qualified electors (i.e., landowners or registered voters, depending upon the number of registered voters) have previously provided approval. If the projected revenue from the maximum special tax exceeds what is 234
ID: 26-0060 Page 4
necessary to fund the services within the tax rate area, a lower amount will be applied to the property tax bill for all of the properties within the affected tax rate area. The maximum special tax rates are detailed below.

Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No.

Property Type FY 2025/26
Maximum Special Tax Rate1
Juana E. Paredes
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0199/BFR25-0185
318 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
Yesenia Perez
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0219/BFR25-0131
319 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
Jaime Jimenez Aviles Sr.

Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0210/BFR25-0129
320 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
Wei & Zhou Living Trust Dated 03/16/23,
Junhua Wei, and Siyian Zhou
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0147/BFR24-0198
322 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
Pedro Gomez, Maria del Carmen Gomez,
and Vanessa Gomez
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP26-0004/BFR25-0197
323 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
Salvador Michel and
Mariana Gabriela Torres
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0215/BFR23-0070
324 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
1The special tax applied to the property tax bill will be based on the needs of the District. The applied special tax rate cannot exceed the maximum special tax rate.

The maximum special tax rate is subject to an annual inflation adjustment based on the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or five percent (5%), whichever is greater.

However, the annual adjustment cannot be applied unless the CSD Board annually authorizes such adjustment. The increase to the maximum special tax rate cannot exceed the annual inflationary adjustment without a two-thirds approval of the qualified electors within the affected tax rate area.

NOTIFICATION
The Landowner Petitions were provided to the Property Owners on January 27 and 30, 2026.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Isa Rojas Felicia London
Management Analyst Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Concurred By: Concurred By:
235
ID: 26-0060 Page 5
Valerie Arenas Rey Jeremy Bubnick
Special Districts Division Manager Parks & Community Services Director

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Community Image, Neighborhood Pride and Cleanliness: Promote a sense of community pride and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

Revenue Diversification and Preservation: Develop a variety of City revenue sources and policies to create a stable revenue base and fiscal policies to support essential City services, regardless of economic climate.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
Objective 4.2: Develop and maintain a comprehensive Infrastructure Plan to invest in and deliver City infrastructure.

Objective 5.2: Promote the installation and maintenance of cost effective, low maintenance landscape, hardscape and other improvements which create a clean, inviting community.
236
ID: 26-0060 Page 6
Report Approval Details
Document Title: STAFFREPORT_FMS_SD_ANNEXATIONS INTO CFD 2021- 01_02.17.26.docx
Attachments: - RESOLUTION ORDERING ANNEXATIONS_02.17.26.docx - CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION OFFICIAL_02.17.26.docx
Final Approval
Date:

Feb 11, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

No Signature found
Isa Rojas
No Signature found
Valerie Arenas Rey
No Signature found
Jeremy Bubnick
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
237
1 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2026-___

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF

THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,

ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021-01 (PARKS

MAINTENANCE) AND APPROVING AMENDED MAPS FOR

SAID DISTRICT
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. CSD 2021-22, Board established the Moreno Valley Community Services District Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance) (the “CFD”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 et seq.) (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. CSD 55, the Board authorized an annual special tax to be levied against all non-exempt parcels of real property within the CFD (the “Special Tax”) to fund parks maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, in order to permit landowners to efficiently annex developing parcels to the CFD, the Board, by its Ordinance No. CSD 56 designated the entire territory of the City of Moreno Valley as a future annexation area for the CFD; and WHEREAS, the landowners of the Parcels listed on Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, have submitted to the District (a) petitions requesting and approving annexation of the listed “Annexation Parcels” to the CFD; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Parcels are comprised of the territory shown on the boundary maps (the “Boundary Maps”) entitled “Amendment Numbers: 318-320 and 322- 324 to Boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Parks Maintenance), Moreno Valley Community Services District, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California” which are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to annex the Annexation Parcels to the CFD.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD FOR THE MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY

SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct and are herein incorporated.

2. Annexations Approved. The Annexation Parcels are hereby added to and part of the CFD with full legal effect and are subject to the Special Tax.

3. Description of Services. The following is a general description of the services (the “Services”) provided in the CFD:
238
2 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
Maintaining, lighting, and operating parks and park improvements that are owned and operated by the CSD, to the extent such services are in addition to services already provided at the time CFD No. 2021-01 was created and do not supplant existing services.

Fundable services include (i) planting, replanting, mowing, trimming, irrigation and fertilization of grass, trees, shrubs, and other plants and vegetation, (ii) the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of irrigation systems and lighting systems, and (iii) the operation maintenance, repair and replacement of any real property or improvements with a useful life of more than five years.

Fundable costs include, but are not limited to: (i) contracted costs for such services, (ii) salaries and benefits of staff, including park rangers, devoted to such services, (iii) expenses related to equipment, apparatus, and supplies related to these services, (iv) administrative and overhead costs, including staff time, associated with providing such services, and (v) lifecycle costs associated with the repair and replacement of facilities and improvements.

4. Amended Boundary Maps. The Boundary Maps attached hereto as Exhibit B are hereby approved. This map amends, and does not supersede, the existing maps of the CFD. The Board directs that said maps be filed with the Riverside County Recorder pursuant to Section 3113 of the Streets and Highways Code.

5. Notices of Special Tax Lien. The Board directs that an amended notice of special tax lien be recorded pursuant to Section 3117.5 of the Streets and Highways Code with respect to the Annexation Parcels associated with the Boundary Maps.

6. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall maintain it on file as a public record this Resolution.

8. Severability. The Board declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.
239
3 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February, 2026.
_______________________________
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley,
acting in the capacity as President of the
Board for the Moreno Valley Community
Services District
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley,
acting in the capacity of Secretary of
the Moreno Valley Community
Services District
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Moreno Valley,
acting in the capacity of General Counsel
of the Moreno Valley Community Services District
240
4 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )
I, M. Patricia Rodriguez, Secretary of the Moreno Valley Community Services District, Moreno Valley, California do hereby certify that Resolution No. CSD 2026-___ was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors for the Moreno Valley Community Services District at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
(Boardmembers, Vice-President and President)
_________________________________

SECRETARY
(SEAL)
241
5 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

EXHIBIT A
List of Annexation Parcels
Boundary Map
Amendment
No.

Assessor's Parcel
Numbers
FY 2025/26
Maximum
Special Tax Rate1
318 481-064-028 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
319 479-402-018 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
320 264-302-034 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
322 292-054-014 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
323 479-253-009 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
324 479-090-012 Single-Family $369.57/Unit
1Based on current development plans, it is anticipated that the Annexation Group will be in the Land Use Category listed above; however, all taxes will be calculated as set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment.
242
6 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

EXHIBIT B
Boundary Map Amendments
243
7 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
244
8 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
245
9 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
246
10 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
247
11 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
248
12 Resolution No. CSD 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
249
ATTACHMENT 2

CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION OFFICIAL
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0061 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Felicia London, Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS INTO CFD NO.
2023-01 (PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES) (REPORT OF:

FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES)
(DISTRICTS: 1, 2, 3)
TITLE SUMMARY: Pursuant to Landowner Petitions, Annex Certain Parcels into Community Facilities District No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services) (Reso No. 2026-____)
DISTRICT: District 1, 2, 3
Recommendation(s)
That the City Council:

1. Acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services), adopt Resolution No. 2026-__, a Resolution of the City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District, for the specific properties as listed in the Discussion section of this staff report and as previously approved by the Landowner and certified by the City’s Election Official (Amendments Nos.141-143 and 145-147).

SUMMARY
Adoption of the resolution (Attachment 1) will order the annexation of a total of 6 parcels into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services) (the “District”). This action impacts only the property owners identified below, not the general citizens or taxpayers of the City.
257
ID: 26-0061 Page 2

DISCUSSION
As conditions of approval for the development projects, Property Owners are required to provide an ongoing funding source for certain public services (i.e., public safety services).

The funding mitigates the costs of impacts created by the proposed development.

On November 21, 2023, the City Council formed CFD No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services) to provide alternative funding tools for the development community to mitigate the impact of their proposed development. Annexation into the District provides property owners a mechanism to fund public safety services, through an annual special tax.

On March 5, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1007, which designated the entire territory of the City as a future annexation area for CFD 2023-01. With the future annexation areas designated, annexations can occur without an additional public hearing as long as the annexing landowners provide unanimous consent.

A property owner has the following options to satisfy the development conditions requiring a funding source for certain public services:

1. Annex the territory into the applicable CFDs. (This option is generally only available if there are fewer than 12 registered voters living within the proposed annexation area); or

2. Create a permanent, prefunded, and irrevocable endowment that will yield an annual revenue stream to meet the annual obligation and provide for the ongoing operational services.

If a landowner elects to annex their property into the Districts and the City Council approves the annexations, the City is authorized to levy special taxes onto the annual property tax bill to fund the services related to or impacted by their development.

The following property owners have elected to annex into the District to satisfy their conditions of approval:

Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No. APN Location
Juana E. Paredes
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0200/BFR25-0185
141 481-064-028 24633 Singer St.

Yesenia Perez
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0220/BFR25-0131
142 479-402-018 25806 Sweetleaf St.

Jaime Jimenez Aviles Sr.

Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0211/BFR25-0129
143 264-302-034 23015 Seabrook Ln.
258
ID: 26-0061 Page 3
Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No. APN Location
Wei & Zhou Living Trust Dated 03/16/23,
Junhua Wei & Siyian Zhou
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0148/BFR24-0198
145 292-054-014 12638 Valley Meadows Dr.

Pedro Gomez, Maria del Carmen Gomez,
and Vanessa Gomez
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP26-0005/BFR25-0197
146 479-253-009 13481 Gold Pl.

Salvador Michel and
Mariana Gabriela Torres
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0216/BFR23-0070
147 479-090-012 25241 Eucalyptus Ave.

The Office of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters confirmed there were less than 12 registered voters residing at each property, allowing a special election of the landowner.

Adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment 1) amends the District and adds the property/properties, with a special tax rate based on property type, in the Fiscal Impact section of this report and directs the recordation of the boundary maps and amended notices of special tax lien for the amendments. The City Clerk received and reviewed the Landowner Petitions and confirmed the Property Owners unanimously approved the annexations of their property into the Districts (Attachment 2).

Successful completion of the annexation process satisfies the project’s conditions of approval requirements to provide a funding source for public safety services.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve an authorize the recommended actions as presented in this staff report.

Staff recommend this alternative.

2. Do not approve and authorize the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT
Revenue received from the special taxes are restricted and can only be used to fund services within the District. The special tax can only be applied to a property tax bill of a parcel wherein the qualified electors (i.e., landowners or registered voters, depending upon the number of registered voters) have previously provided approval. The maximum special tax rate is detailed below. If the projected revenue from the maximum special tax exceeds what is necessary to fund the services, a lower amount will be applied to the property tax bill.
259
ID: 26-0061 Page 4
Property Owner(s)
Project
ACP Record Nos.

Amendment
No. Property Type FY 2025/26 Maximum Special Tax Rate1
Juana E. Paredes
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0200/BFR25-0185
141 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
Yesenia Perez
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0220/BFR25-0131
142 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
Jaime Jimenez Aviles Sr.

Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0211/BFR25-0129
143 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
Wei & Zhou Living Trust Dated 03/16/23,
Junhua Wei & Siyian Zhou
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0148/BFR24-0198
145 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
Pedro Gomez, Maria del Carmen Gomez,
and Vanessa Gomez
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP26-0005/BFR25-0197
146 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
Salvador Michel and
Mariana Gabriela Torres
Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
SCP25-0216/BFR23-0070
147 Accessory
Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
1The special tax applied to the property tax bill will be based on the needs of the District. The applied special tax rate cannot exceed the maximum special tax rate.

The maximum special tax rates are subject to an annual inflation adjustment based on the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or five percent (5%), whichever is greater.

However, the annual adjustment cannot be applied unless the City Council annually authorizes such adjustment. The increase to the maximum special tax rates cannot exceed the annual inflationary adjustment without a two-thirds approval of the qualified electors.

NOTIFICATION
The Landowner Petitions were provided to the Property Owners on January 27 and 30, 2026.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Department Head Approval:

Isa Rojas Felicia London
Management Analyst Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer Concurred by: Concurred by:

Valerie Arenas Rey Shanna Palau
Special Districts Division Manager Public Safety Contracts Administrator 260
ID: 26-0061 Page 5

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
Objective 2.5: Develop partnerships with local businesses and warehouse operators to reduce traffic related issues.

Objective 2.6: Enhance operational excellence and efficiency in delivery of Police services.

Objective 2.7: Fully integrate Fire Prevention activities into the City’s Development Services processes to provide swift, seamless service.
261
ID: 26-0061 Page 6
Report Approval Details
Document Title: STAFFREPORT_FMS_SD_ANNEXATIONS INTO CFD 2023- 01_02.17.26.docx
Attachments: - RESOLUTION ORDERING ANNEXATION_CFD 2023- 01_02.17.26.docx
- CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION OFFICIAL_CFD 2023-
01_02.17.26.docx
Final Approval
Date:

Feb 11, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

No Signature found
Isa Rojas
No Signature found
Valerie Arenas Rey
No Signature found
Shanna Palau
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
262
1 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-01
(PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES) AND APPROVING

AMENDED MAPS FOR SAID DISTRICT
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2023-82, the City Council established the City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services) (the “CFD”), a citywide district, pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 et seq.) (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 1004, the City Council authorized an annual special tax to be levied against all non-exempt parcels of real property within the CFD (the “Special Tax”) to fund public safety services; and WHEREAS, in order to permit landowners to efficiently annex developing parcels to the CFD, the City Council, by its Ordinance No. 1007 designated the entire territory of the City as a future annexation area for the CFD and approved the rate and method of apportionment for the Special Tax; and
WHEREAS, the landowners of the parcels listed in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, has submitted to the City a petition requesting and approving annexation to the CFD of said parcels; and WHEREAS, territory proposed for annexation to the CFD Parcels are shown on the boundary maps titled “Amendment Nos. 141-143 and 145-147 to Boundaries of City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2023-01 (Public Safety Services), City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California” (the “Boundary Maps”), which are attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to annex the territory shown on the Boundary Maps (the Annexation Parcels) to the CFD.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct and are herein incorporated.

2. Annexations Approved. The Annexation Parcels are hereby added to and made part of the CFD with full legal effect. The Annexation Parcels are subject to the Special Tax as indicated on Exhibit A to this Resolution.

3. Description of Services. The following is a general description of all services (the “Services”) provided in the CFD:
263
2 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
Police protection services; fire protection and suppression services; and paramedic services, to the extent such services are in addition to services already provided at the time CFD No. 2023-01 is created and do not supplant existing services.

Fundable costs include, but are not limited to: (i) direct costs for such services, (ii) salaries and benefits of staff providing such services, (iii) expenses related to equipment, apparatus, and supplies related to these services, (iv) administrative and overhead costs, including staff time, associated with providing such services, and (v) lifecycle costs associated with the repair and replacement of facilities and improvements used to provide such services. Fundable costs also include the incidental expenses of the administration of CFD No. 2023-01.

4. Amended Boundary Maps. The Boundary Maps are hereby approved. These maps amend, and does not supersede, the existing maps of the CFD. The City Council directs that said maps be filed with the Riverside County Recorder pursuant to Section 3113 of the Streets and Highways Code.

5. Notices of Special Tax Lien. The City Council directs that amended notices of special tax lien be recorded pursuant to Section 3117.5 of the Streets and Highways Code with respect to the Annexation Parcels associated with the Boundary Maps.

6. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall maintain on file as a public record this Resolution.

8. Severability. That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

9. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.
264
3 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 2026.
____________________________
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
City Attorney
265
4 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )
I, M. Patricia Rodriguez, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2026-___ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)
___________________________________

CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
266
5 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

EXHIBIT A
List of Annexation Parcels
Boundary Map
Amendment
No.

Assessor's Parcel
Numbers
FY 2025/26
Maximum
Special Tax Rate1
141 481-064-028 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
142 479-402-018 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
143
264-302-034 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
145 292-054-014 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
146 479-253-009 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
147 479-090-012 Accessory Dwelling Unit $216.30/Unit
1Based on current development plans, it is anticipated that the Annexation Group will be in the Land Use Category listed above; however, all taxes will be calculated as set forth in the Rate and Method of Apportionment.
267
6 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

EXHIBIT B
Boundary Map Amendments
268
7 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
269
8 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
270
9 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
271
10 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
272
11 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
273
12 Resolution No. 2026-___
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
274
ATTACHMENT 2

CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION OFFICIAL
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0054 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Robert Cardenas, Human Resources Director
AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: LIST OF PERSONNEL CHANGES (REPORT OF:

HUMAN RESOURCES) (DISTRICT: NOT APPLICABLE)
TITLE SUMMARY: List of Personnel Changes (January 1, 2026 – January 31, 2026)
DISTRICT: Not Applicable
Recommendation(s)
The City Council:

1. Ratify the list of personnel changes as described.

DISCUSSION
The attached list of personnel changes scheduled since the last City Council meeting is presented for the Council's ratification.

Staffing of the City positions ensures the assignment of highly qualified and trained personnel to achieve Momentum Moval priorities, objectives, and initiatives.

FISCAL IMPACT
All position changes are consistent with appropriations previously approved by the City Council.

NOTIFICATION
282
ID: 26-0054 Page 2
Publication of the agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Natalie Potter Robert Cardenas
Human Resources Division Manager Human Resources Director

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
283
ID: 26-0054 Page 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: STAFFREPORT_HR_PERSONNEL CHANGES-JANUARY 2026.docx
Attachments: - Attachment_Personnel Changes for Staff
Report_2.17.26.pdf
Final Approval Date: Feb 10, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Robert Cardenas
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
284
City of Moreno Valley
Personnel Changes - 1/1/26 – 1/31/26
February 17, 2026
New Hires
Valerie Arenas Rey, Special Districts Division Manager, Special Districts Division, Financial and Management Services Department
Giovanny Felix, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Utility Division, Public Works Department Blodin Gula, Management Analyst, Electric Utility Division, Public Works Department Shanae Hill, GIS Specialist, Technology Services Division, City Manager Department Jessica Perez, Human Resources Technician, Human Resources Department Javier Ramirez, Facilities Maintenance Worker, Fleet and Facilities Division, Public Works Department Francisco Sanchez, Associate Electric Engineer, Electric Utility Division, Public Works Department Ju Sung, Applications Analyst, Technology Services Division, City Manager Department Lauren Tapley, Website Coordinator, Media and Communications Division, City Manager Department Promotions
Felicia London
From: Deputy Finance Director, Financial and Management Services Department To: Chief Financial Officer, Financial and Management Services Department Transfers
None
Separations
Lesia Bowers, Customer Service Manager, Electric Utility Division, Public Works Department Sandra Brieno, Deputy Compliance Director, Financial and Management Services Department Jon Colon, Associate Engineer I, Land Development Division, Public Works Department Clement Harris, Landscape Services Inspector, Parks and Landscape Services Division, Parks and 285
Community Services Department
Anthony Macias Jr, Equipment Operator, Maintenance & Operations Division, Public Works Department Alejandro Meraz, Community Enhancement Officer I, Community Enhancement and Neighborhood Services Division, Community Development Department
286
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0075 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mayor and City Council Acting in its Capacity as
President and Members of the Board of Directors of
the Moreno Valley Community Services District (CSD)
FROM: Jeremy Bubnick, Parks & Community Services
Director
AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: APPROVE THE ADDITION OF THE VISION AND

MISSION STATEMENTS TO THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED PARKS, COMMUNITY SERVICES &
TRAILS MASTER PLAN (REPORT OF: PARKS AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES) (DISTRICT: ALL DISTRICTS)
TITLE SUMMARY: Approve the Addition of the Vision and Mission Statements to the Previously Approved Parks, Community Services &
Trails Master Plan
DISTRICT: All Districts
Recommendation(s)
That the City Council and CSD:

1. The Commission for Accreditation of Parks & Recreation Agencies requires that our Parks, Community Services, and Trails Masterplan include the department’s Vision and Mission Statements. To meet this requirement, the City Council must approve the addition of this language to the previously approved plan (December 19, 2023).

SUMMARY
On December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted the Moreno Valley Parks, Community Services & Trails Master Plan.
287
ID: 26-0075 Page 2
The Commission for Accreditation of Parks & Recreation Agencies requires that our Parks, Community Services, and Trails Masterplan include the department’s Vision and Mission Statements. To meet this requirement, the City Council must approve the addition of this language to the previously approved plan (December 19, 2023)

BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted the Moreno Valley Parks, Community Services & Trails Master Plan.

The Commission for Accreditation of Parks & Recreation Agencies requires that our Parks, Community Services, and Trails Masterplan include the department’s Vision and Mission Statements. To meet this requirement, the City Council must approve the addition of the following language to the previously approved plan (December 19, 2023):

Vision
To be the Southern California leader in providing the best inclusive, innovative, and sustainable programs, facilities, and services that enhance quality of life of our residents.

Mission
The mission of the Parks & Community Services Department is to enhance the quality of life in Moreno Valley by providing safe and welcoming parks, trails, and open spaces, and by offering enriching recreational opportunities through quality facilities, programs, services, and activities for our residents.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the recommendations as listed in this staff report.

2. Do not approve the recommendations as listed in this staff report. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

NOTIFICATION
Posting of Agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Danielle Monarrez Jeremy Bubnick
288
ID: 26-0075 Page 3
PCS Admin & Financial Services Division Manager Parks & Community Services Director

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Advocacy. Develop cooperative intergovernmental relationships and be a forceful advocate of City policies, objectives, and goals to appropriate external governments, agencies and corporations.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

Community Image, Neighborhood Pride and Cleanliness. Promote a sense of community pride and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
289
ID: 26-0075 Page 4
Report Approval Details
Document Title: STAFFREPORT_PCS_PARKSMASTERPLAN.docx
Attachments:

Final Approval
Date:

Feb 12, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Jeremy Bubnick
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
290
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0062 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Melissa Walker, Public Works Director/City Engineer AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND

APPROVE THE FINAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN (REPORT OF: PUBLIC WORKS)
(DISTRICT: ALL DISTRICTS)
TITLE SUMMARY: Adopt Resolution 2026-____A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Moreno Valley To Accept And
Approve The Final Transportation Demand Management
Plan As An Official City Planning Document Prepared Under The California Department Of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program
DISTRICT: All Districts
Recommendation(s)
That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2026____, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley to accept and approve the Transportation Demand Management Plan as an official planning document for the City of Moreno Valley, in compliance with the requirements of the California Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program.

SUMMARY
This report recommends adoption of Resolution 2026-____ which would accept and approve the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) as an official planning document for the City of Moreno Valley. Adoption of the TDM by the City Council constitutes the final action necessary to satisfy the compliance and reimbursement 291
ID: 26-0062 Page 2
requirements of the California Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program.

DISCUSSION
The Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) provides a comprehensive framework for implementing strategies that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and promote alternative transportation modes. Key objectives of TDM strategies include reducing traffic congestion, conserving energy, lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improving community health, enhancing transportation equity, alleviating parking challenges, and improving overall safety. The plan also supports regional sustainability goals and positions the City to pursue future funding opportunities for implementation.

The TDM is consistent with the mission of the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program, which seeks to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all users while respecting the environment. The program is funded in part through Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which establishes a sustainable funding source for maintaining and integrating California’s multimodal transportation system. Through SB 1 funding, approximately $25 million in Sustainable Communities Grants is made available during each grant cycle to support projects that promote sustainable transportation planning.

On August 31, 2023, the City of Moreno Valley was awarded $120,000 to prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan. The total project cost was $135,547, with $120,000 (88.53 %) funded by the Caltrans grant and $15,547 (11.47 %) provided as a City local match. On February 20, 2024, the City Council accepted funding from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program and authorized the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute a Restricted Grant Agreement with Caltrans for the development of the TDM which will allow the City to receive reimbursement based upon the grant award requirements.

Staff recommends adoption of a resolution to establish the Final Transportation Demand Management Plan as an official City planning document. This action represents the final step to satisfy the compliance and reimbursement requirements of the California Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program and will guide future transportation demand strategies within the City.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve and authorize the recommendations as presented in this report. This alternative will establish the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) as an official planning document for the City, ensure compliance with the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program, enable the City to receive reimbursement from the grant award, and allow projects to move forward in a timely manner. Staff recommends this alternative.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. 292
ID: 26-0062 Page 3
Choosing this alternative would mean the City does not formally accept the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan as an official planning document. This would limit the City’s ability to implement the plan’s strategies in future transportation planning efforts and could result in the City forgoing the grant award and reduce the City’s competitiveness for future sustainable transportation grant opportunities. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with accepting and approving the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan.

NOTIFICATION
Publication of the agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Ronald P. Borromeo Melissa Walker, P.E.

Associate Engineer Public Works Director/City Engineer
Concurred By:

Harold Zamora, P.E.

Engineering Division Manager/Assistant City Engineer

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Advocacy: Develop cooperative intergovernmental relationships and be a forceful advocate of City policies, objectives, and goals to appropriate external governments, agencies and corporations.

Positive Environment: Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

Public Safety: Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
293
ID: 26
-0062 Page 4
294
ID: 26-0062 Page 5
Report Approval Details
Document Title: STAFFREPORT_PW_TE_TDM_ADOPTION.docx
Attachments: - DRAFT_City Resolution_.doc
- Moreno Valley Final TDM Plan (Dec 2025)r_02022026.pdf Final Approval
Date:

Feb 10, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Melissa Walker
Sean Kelleher
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
295
Attachment “_“
1 Resolution No. 2026-____
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AND

APPROVING THE FINAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT (TDM) PLAN PREPARED UNDER THE

CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (City) received grant funding through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2024, the City Council accepted the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant funding and authorized the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute a Restricted Grant Agreement with Caltrans for development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan; and
WHEREAS, acceptance and approval of the Final TDM Plan will establish it as an official City planning document and guide future transportation demand strategies, as well as support the City’s pursuit of future grant funding opportunities; and WHEREAS, staff has presented the Final TDM Plan to the City Council for acceptance and approval at a duly noticed meeting held on February 17, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. RECITALS
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL
The City Council hereby accepts and approves the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan prepared under the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program as an official planning document of the City. 296
2 Resolution No. 2026-____
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February, 2026.
___________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:
____________________________
M. Patricia Rodriguez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
297
3 Resolution No. 2026-____
Date Adopted: February 17, 2026

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)
__________________________________________
M. PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
298

MORENO VALLEY, CA

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT (TDM) PLAN
DECEMBER 2025
• •
299

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW P.3
This chapter introduces the TDM Plan and what is contained within it, and the purpose and intent (the “why”) of the TDM Plan.

II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT P.6
This chapter summarizes the findings and takeaways of the existing conditions report, policy and planning context (including goals and policies from the 2006 and pending draft Moreno Valley 2040 General Plans, SCAG’s Connect SoCal, and WRCOG priorities that guide Moreno Valley’s TDM strategy), a review of peer city programs, and outreach and stakeholder input.

This chapter also summarizes the key takeaways for the City of Moreno Valley and includes a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis and comparison table.

III. VISION AND GOALS P.19
This chapter introduces the TDM Plan’s mission statement and defines eight overarching goals that guide the city’s TDM efforts, including improving multimodal connectivity, reducing VMT, and supporting commuters and employers.

IV. STRATEGIES AND MEASURES P.25
This chapter outlines 22 actionable strategies Moreno Valley will implement to support TDM goals, including web tools, incentive programs, infrastructure toolkits, employer support, and mobility services.

V. PERFORMANCE MONITORING & EVALUATION P.50
This chapter defines how Moreno Valley will track progress toward its TDM goals through measures related to participation, funding, VMT reduction, outreach, and supporting facilities.

These metrics support accountability, performance evaluation, and ongoing program refinement as funding and reporting needs evolve.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK P.55
This chapter describes how the City and its partners will move from planning to action through clearly defined roles and responsibilities for City departments, regional agencies, employers, and community stakeholders. The framework organizes strategies into near-, mid-, and long-term phases to align program delivery with staffing capacity, partnerships, and funding availability. Early actions focus on establishing program foundations and quick wins, while later phases expand services, strengthen employer-led initiatives, and integrate TDM more fully into long-range planning and policy.
2 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
300

OVERVIEW
301
I. OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION
As Moreno Valley becomes an increasingly desirable place for people to live, work, and play, it is important that the City balances growth and economic opportunity with demand on roadway and parking infrastructure and a responsibility to achieve environmental targets.

At the same time, innovation across the mobility landscape is accelerating at a rapid pace, adding new and emerging approaches and technologies, such as microtransit, shared mobility, remote work, and advances in autonomous vehicles.

What is TDM?
Transportation Demand Management refers to strategies that encourage people to shift away from driving alone by increasing the convenience of multiple travel options.

Carpool/
vanpool
Information
and resources
Alternative
work
schedules
Remote
work
options
Bus
passes
Walk/bike
infrastructure
and subsidies
On-site
carshare
Parking
cash out
Bike parking/
repair stations
4 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
302
Regional Partners
The Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM
Plan) provides a strategic approach for reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, improving mobility, and
supporting sustainability goals. It aligns with city, regional, and state policies, integrates with development review, and defines Moreno Valley’s partnerships with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA), the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG), and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). The purpose of the
Plan is to:

Provide a framework to
implement a program
to guide decisions and
investments to deliver TDM
strategies to City residents,
workers and visitors.

Establish roles,
responsibilities and
coordination between
City departments.

Identify opportunities to deliver strategies and
infrastructure that provides travel options and support mode shift away from single occupancy vehicle.

Identify opportunities to
collaborate with regional
partners and employers.

Establish metrics for
tracking success and
refining strategies
over time.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 5
-

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION
Riverside Transit Agency
... · •
----It
303

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
304
II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
An assessment of existing conditions and a literature review was conducted to understand the transportation context and agencies that provide TDM within and around Moreno Valley.

The analysis included key legislation, existing and future TDM strategies to influence travel behavior, and a review of TDM programs in peer cities.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Overview of Moreno Valley’s Transportation
Context
Moreno Valley is a rapidly growing community in Riverside County, California, strategically located along major transportation corridors and serving as a hub for regional commerce, education, and residential development. The city’s transportation system supports a diverse population of over 210,000 residents and numerous regional employers, including logistics centers, educational institutions, retail hubs, and healthcare facilities.

While the city benefits from existing transit and roadway infrastructure, its travel patterns are heavily dependent on SOVs, contributing to roadway congestion, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and a lack of travel choice for residents without access to a car. The baseline conditions assessment identified both strengths to build upon and critical gaps that the TDM Plan aims to address.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 7
SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
~
"
~1--====--- .::1
Households per Square Mile
, ,oo
200 500
- 500 - 1,000
- 1000 - 2.000
- ,2.000
Source·
5CAGXJ24 ,-----<1Mlle A
305
Travel Behavior & Mode Share
The review of available travel survey data, regional mode share statistics, and US Census American Community Survey (ACS) results shows:

HIGH SOV DEPENDENCY:

More than 80% of commuters travel
to work in a single-occupant vehicle.

LOW TRANSIT UTILIZATION:

Fewer than 3% of commuters use
public transit for work trips, despite
the presence of regional bus services.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION USAGE:

Less than 1% of trips are made by bicycle, with pedestrian trips primarily occurring for short distances within
residential neighborhoods or to local retail centers.

CARPOOL AND VANPOOL PARTICIPATION:

Roughly 10% of commuters use shared ride options, with
vanpool participation supported by the Inland Empire
Commuter program and employer incentives.
8 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
Jobs per Square Mile
< 100
100 • 250
- 250 - 750
- 750 - 1,500
- > l ,500
1------<1 M e A
SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS
306
Transportation Network & Services
ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE:
• The city’s roadway network is dominated
by arterials and freeways, with State Route
60 (SR-60) and Interstate 215 (I-215)
providing regional connectivity.
• Congestion hotspots occur along key
arterials during peak commuting periods,
particularly near employment centers and
retail corridors.

TRANSIT SERVICES:
• RTA operates fixed-route bus service,
express commuter routes, and regional
connections to Metrolink stations.
• IE Commuter provides vanpool matching
and subsidy programs, but awareness and
participation in these services remain low.

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
INFRASTRUCTURE:
• The city has a network of multi-use trails
and bike lanes; however, connections
between residential areas, transit
stops, and major destinations are often
incomplete or lack adequate crossings.
• Pedestrian facilities vary in quality, with
some areas lacking continuous sidewalks,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-
compliant curb ramps, and adequate
street lighting.

MICROMOBILITY & SHARED MOBILITY:
• Currently, there are no large-scale
micromobility programs (e.g., bike share or
scooter share) operating in Moreno Valley.
• Demand for micromobility services
is growing, especially in connecting
residential neighborhoods to transit stops,
shopping centers, and schools.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 9
SOURCES: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY; MHROLINK.
~ _/~' ~ \,.---- Euci'.l lyptus,ve
- RTA Bus Routes
Di.il•A•Ride Service
• RTA Bu.,; Stops
Source:

Met,fx.iol:, Ri•rmide
rronsrr A9ency (RTA)
G~'1,:
<ll)~lf
:,~J'&,,
® Moreno Valley / March
fle!d Station
:'di: , :;:; Val ey Sen:Or
307
MORENO
VALLEY
13,136
49,272 75,886
Demographics & Employment

POPULATION
CHARACTERISTICS:
• Moreno Valley has a
diverse and young
population, with a median
age of 32 years old.
• The city has a significant
share of households
with children and a large
proportion of working-age
residents commuting to
regional job centers.

EMPLOYMENT HUBS:
• Major employment centers
include March Air Reserve
Base, Moreno Valley
Mall, Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center, Riverside
University Health System,
Moreno Valley College,
and large logistics/
distribution hubs along
SR-60.
• Employment is clustered
in areas accessible by
arterials and freeways, but
many sites have limited
direct transit access.

TRIP GENERATORS:
• Lake Perris State
Recreation Area and
regional shopping
centers attract significant
weekend and evening
trips.

Gaps and
Barriers to
Sustainable
Transportation

1. First/Last Mile
Connectivity: Many
transit stops lack direct,
safe pedestrian or
bicycle connections from
nearby neighborhoods.

2. Employer Engagement:

Limited employer
participation in TDM
programs beyond large
institutions.

3. Infrastructure Gaps:

Missing sidewalks,
incomplete bike
networks, and
inconsistent trail
connections limit active
transportation uptake.

4. Awareness & Outreach:

Many residents and
employers are unaware
of existing commuter
resources, subsidies, or
incentive programs.

5. Parking Policy:

Abundant free parking
at employment sites
encourages SOV
commuting and reduces
incentive for alternative
modes.

6. Limited Micromobility
Options: Absence of
shared bikes or scooters
reduces flexibility for
short trips.
10 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
)
308
Current TDM Programs and Partnerships
Existing programs and partnerships in Moreno Valley provide a foundation for expanding TDM efforts. IE Commuter incentives offer free Metrolink passes, $5/day incentives, and vanpool subsidies to support employer-based TDM programs. While these benefits exist, the absence of a Guaranteed Ride Home program remains a barrier to wider adoption of transit and rideshare modes. Enterprise Vanpool serves as a successful vanpool model, particularly effective for military installations. The World Logistics Center has contributed to transit infrastructure by funding bus stops, expressed interest in formalizing contributions within the City’s TDM Plan, and secured a grant for e-bikes to support micromobility initiatives.

Opportunities for TDM Program Development
• Regional Coordination: Leverage partnerships with RCTC, RTA, WRCOG, and SCAG for funding, outreach, and technical assistance.
• Employer Programs: Expand participation in commuter benefits, vanpool subsidies, and telework policies.
• Infrastructure Investments: Target investments in mobility hubs, complete streets projects, and secure bike parking at key destinations.
• Equity-Focused Services: Ensure TDM strategies address the needs of low-income residents, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. • Marketing & Education: Develop a branded TDM program and website to consolidate resources and promote available services.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 11
309

POLICY & PLANNING CONTEXT
A. The Moreno Valley 2006 General Plan, in Section 5.3 of the Circulation Element, states that the implementation of TDM strategies can be used to reduce peak hour trips, decrease non-attainment pollutants, and maintain mobility and access as the region continues to grow and prosper.

B. Policy 5-13 of the Moreno Valley 2006 General Plan recommends the implementation of TDM strategies that reduce congestion in the peak travel hours. Examples include carpooling, telecommuting, and flexible work hours.

C. Goal C-4 of the pending draft Moreno Valley 2040 General Plan is about providing convenient and safe connections within Moreno Valley. Policy C.4-1 recommends supporting the development of high-speed transit linkages and first/last mile solutions, connecting major destinations with the city and beyond, and including expanded Metrolink access. Policy C.4-2 recommends collaborating with employers and institutions to improve connectivity to major destinations (Downtown Center, the Moreno Valley Mall, the hospital complexes, Moreno Valley College, and the Lake Perris State Recreation Area). Policy C.4-3 recommends pursuing the establishment of a Transit Center/Mobility Hub “Downtown Center.” Policies C.4-4 and C.4-5 recommend requiring sidewalk infrastructure in new developments and improving pedestrian comfort and safety.
12 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
310
D. Goal C-5 of the pending draft Moreno Valley 2040 General Plan is about enhancing transportation operations and reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Policy C.5-1 recommends reducing VMT through land use planning, enhanced transit access, and promoting non-automotive modes. Policy C.5-5 recommends encouraging employers to implement TDM strategies such as shared ride programs, parking cashout, transit benefits, telecommuting, and alternative work schedules. Action C.5-D recommends working with RTA and Metrolink to improve transit frequency, reliability, and access. Action 5-G recommends studying the feasibility of car-sharing programs and innovative transportation solutions.

E. SCAG’s Connect SoCal (2020–2045) allocates $7.3 billion for TDM strategies, emphasizing the reduction of SOV trips through ridesharing and first/last mile services, promoting telecommuting and alternative work schedules, and increasing the use of public transit, rail, bicycling, walking, and micromobility modes.

WRCOG TDM priorities include diversifying land use, improving pedestrian and bicycle networks, implementing traffic calming measures, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules, and providing ride-share programs.

F. The Moreno Valley TDM Plan intends to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips by making it easier for people to choose transit, carpooling, biking, walking, or teleworking, supporting a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable transportation system. The program will expand affordable and reliable travel options to help residents and workers get where they need to go, while reducing congestion and Improving air quality. Moreno Valley will work with regional partners and employers to provide flexible, connected travel options that save time, reduce costs, and strengthen our economy.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 13
311

PEER CITY REVIEW
A review of peer cities and regional agencies of similar size and density to Moreno Valley that have implemented TDM programs provides insight into strategies relevant to Moreno Valley.

The case studies include small cities using ordinance-based compliance, large metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) managing regional programs, and nonprofit Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) delivering employer-focused services. This review highlights variations in governance, funding, employer engagement, and evaluation methods, identifying scalable and effective strategies for reducing single-occupancy vehicle travel, improving mobility options, and fostering employer participation. 14 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
0 ( Cityof
Carlsbad
Reaoongc., rn.,. •• What is Transportation Demand Management? Transportation Deman(! Management ffDM) is tile concept of using policies, strategies, and programmatic measures to eocoocag, a shi; away 1,om <agte«wpa<><y ~'"''{SOS'""" ,~.,,"'""''~ <,a~, ophoos, Mh as wall mg, okmg, "'""'• aad "'"'"'"'lo"""' lcaffic aad packmg '""" TOM ,tto,,s <o loge<"'°''' lo a,~ ao~ less, aad msc,aa, walk, bike, ride transit or carpool more. TOM is strateg1ca/ly implemented through the citywide TOM plan, including the TDM program Which otters as:.1stance & reSOtJrces 10 busmesses & development Or contact staff tor addrtional help. so 50 50 25 50 10 50 1 ....... ... ~ ....... - ....... - ........ 11111 11111
11111
11111
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 :::11 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 ::::: ..... 11111 11111 111 1 - - - - - 11111 Hill I
every trip counts @®
312
Peer City Review Key Findings

1. Mandates & Codes – Ordinances and zoning requirements create a consistent baseline but require compliance infrastructure.

2. Small Team Impact – Focused, well-supported teams can deliver strong results even with limited staff capacity.

3. Regional Collaboration – Partnerships with MPOs, transit agencies, and TMAs can leverage additional funding, tools, and outreach networks.

4. Performance Tracking – Mode shift, VMT reduction, and participation metrics should be embedded in program design from the outset.

5. Funding Flexibility – A combination of local revenue, regional funding, and grants enables both foundational programs and pilot innovations.

OUTREACH AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Outreach activities were
conducted with stakeholders
and the general public to obtain
input throughout the TDM Plan
development process. Outreach
activities primarily consisted
of virtual meetings and online
polls to identify needs, priorities,
and challenges related to
implementing TDM strategies, as
well as how the City’s proposed
TDM Plan can address these
issues.

Stakeholders such as large
employers and transportation
professionals expressed
enthusiasm for TDM strategies
that can support their existing
work and promote greater
awareness and collaboration for
supporting non-SOV travel. They
noted that a barrier to carpool
and vanpool usage can include a
lack of marketing or awareness,
which can be improved through increased employer-targeted information. Transit use was also seen as a prime beneficiary of improved information sharing, specifically about local transit stops and schedules.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 15
n,,, c;,, ,. , ... ,~,., '" '"' .,~,,. '""''"'"'"" .... ,, rn~nagen,%'t (TOf11J Plan to enhance transp ortation choices " "•• '• "· .. ~., .•. '"''•""'~•. ""' ,., ......... ; of getting around M oreno Valley. ""'·'-•·-........... _____ ,_,, __ , options. This can include:

CARPoou VANPooL
ALTfRNATIVf WORK SCHfDULfs
Rf Mon: WORK OPTIONs
Bus PASSfs BIKE PARKING
CARSHARf
WALKING/BIKING INFRAsrRucruRf
INFORf11ATloN AND RfsouRcfs
~DMCJilE111
313
Community input identified several areas and populations in Moreno Valley that lack convenient access to transportation options. Residents highlighted that the Senior Center lacks adequate parking for both cars and bicycles, limiting accessibility for older adults.

Students at Moreno Valley College noted that existing bike racks are damaged and insecure, and the entrance to the campus is difficult to navigate safely. School zones citywide were described as unsafe for active transportation, with parents often blocking unprotected bike lanes during pickup and drop-off times, deterring students from biking or walking. In neighborhoods such as Cottonwood Avenue, Perris Boulevard, and Redlands Boulevard, residents pointed out the absence of sidewalks and protected bike lanes, forcing pedestrians to walk near traffic and discouraging non-vehicle travel. Those living in the northern part of the city reported limited access to nearby services, noting that basic errands require driving across town due to the lack of a centralized, walkable commercial area. Public transit was described as inconsistent and inaccessible in parts of Hidden Springs and Ironwood Avenue near Welby Place, where bus stops have been removed or are missing entirely. Community members also expressed a desire for clearer transit information, such as a mobile app and long-term investments in infrastructure to support walking, biking, and public transit use. 16 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
314

TAKEAWAYS FOR MORENO VALLEY
Barriers to TDM Participation
Several barriers limit TDM participation in Moreno Valley. Land use and demographics result in travel patterns that are heavily dependent on vehicular travel, and prevailing commutes take place in SOVs. Many employers and employees are unaware of existing programs and incentives, while carpool and vanpool services often fail to accommodate flexible work schedules. Concerns about being stranded without a guaranteed ride home discourage employees from trying alternative modes. Security restrictions at March Air Force Base further limit shared transportation options. Additionally, the prevalence of free and abundant parking reduces motivation for mode shift, and the City’s challenging topography poses safety and comfort issues for bicycling.

Opportunities for Increasing TDM Uptake
Opportunities exist to significantly increase TDM participation through targeted strategies.

TDM strategies, such as promotion of carpools, vanpools, and e-bike adoption can deliver practical and cost-effective solutions to reduce use of SOVs. Programs should be simplified, easy to access, and promoted through marketing that emphasizes flexibility and convenience.

Free pilot programs can encourage trial and early adoption of new services. Tailored marketing strategies using the City’s magazine, mailers, and social media platforms can reach diverse demographic groups. Support for e-bike adoption, leveraging both growing popularity and available grant funding, can strengthen micromobility options. Finally, improving bicycle facilities and amenities, such as bike share programs and partnerships with gyms to provide commuter showers, can make active transportation a more viable choice.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 17
315

SWOT ANALYSIS
The following provides a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis for implementing TDM strategies in Moreno Valley, which served to inform development of the TDM Plan.

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
What helps us?
• The City has a strong employment base, including
concentrations of large employers.
• Strong employment growth is expected, especially
in the World Logistics Center area.
• The climate is suitable for active modes.
• Freeways include HOV lanes that encourage
carpooling.
• Regional congestion (esp. peak, freeway) deters
SOV driving.

Where is there Opportunity?
• Local ballot measures yield sales-tax revenue that
could fund TDM.
• State/regional TDM policies are expanding.
• Planned transit centers and amenity upgrades.
• RTA First/Last Mile Mobility Plan & RCTC TOC Plan
recommendations.
• Existing mobility providers: IE Commuter,
Enterprise Vanpool, Zipcar.
• Large employers willing to pilot strategies (e.g.,
March AFB, World Logistics).
• Build on Metrolink, RTA, RCTC & IE Commuter
incentive programs.
• Use big data to understand behavior and monitor
success.

What holds us back?
• Limited TDM and commuter benefits are
being offered and promoted by employers.
• Mode share is predominantly auto; most
commute trips are drive-alone.
• Barriers to transit/active modes: lower
densities, poor first/last miles connections.
• Free and abundant parking does not
discourage automobile use.
• Long commutes with dispersed origins &
destinations.
• Transit service headways and coverage are
limited.

What risks exist?
• Relatively low costs of driving and parking.
• Low-density land use patterns that don’t
support transit/walking/biking.
• Post-pandemic flexible schedules challenge
carpool/vanpool formation.
• Potential changes to IRS commuter tax
benefits.
• Limited staff capacity to promote, track, and
enforce TDM measures.
18 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
e,,
..
316

VISION AND GOALS
317
III. VISION AND GOALS

VISION STATEMENT
Moreno Valley will reduce single-occupant vehicle
trips by making it easier for people to choose
transit, carpooling, biking, walking, or telework—
supporting a more efficient, equitable, and
sustainable transportation system.

Source: https://www.rctc.org/rctcs-vanclub-monthly-subsidy-increases-to-600/ 20 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
318

1. Improve Mobility Options
Enhance connectivity between transportation services to provide seamless, multimodal travel experiences for residents, workers, and visitors. a. Promote first/last mile connections between major transit nodes and employment or residential centers through infrastructure improvements, wayfinding, and service coordination.
b. Partner with regional agencies (e.g., IE Commuter and Riverside Transit Agency) and employers to expand shuttle, vanpool, bike share, and microtransit solutions. c. Work with regional agencies to improve real-time information systems, integrated fare payment, and multimodal trip-planning tools to reduce transfer times and improve the customer experience.
d. Explore a vanpool program tailored to March Air Force Base in partnership with IE Commuter, leveraging stakeholder interest and employer buy-in.

GOALS OF THE TDM PLAN
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 21
------
319

2. Promote Safe, Efficient, and Equitable
Travel
Ensure all residents and workers can travel safely and efficiently, regardless of mode, age, ability, or income.
a. Prioritize accessible infrastructure and services for seniors, youth, individuals with disabilities, and transit-dependent populations, including ADA-compliant facilities and pedestrian safety enhancements.
b. Partner with regional agencies to expand affordable travel options, such as subsidized transit passes, discounted vanpool programs, and shared-ride services. c. Identify and address barriers to access for military base users and other populations with restricted mobility choices.

3. Enhance Transportation Choices
Increase access to a diverse range of travel options beyond singleoccupant vehicles to improve mobility, health, and sustainability. a. Launch and promote incentive programs for non-SOV modes, including carpooling, vanpooling, and employer-led TDM programs.
b. Implement a Guaranteed Ride Home program to provide security for commuters shifting to non-SOV travel.
c. Collaborate with major employers, hospital complexes, and Moreno Valley College to evaluate alternatives to conventional bus systems—such as smaller shuttle buses, ondemand transit, or transportation network companies—that connect neighborhood and activity centers.
d. Expand infrastructure that supports walking, biking, e-bikes, transit, and carpooling, including protected bike lanes, micro-mobility hubs, and secure parking facilities. 22 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
320

4. Maximize the Efficiency of the
Transportation System
Leverage existing infrastructure and services to meet travel demand more sustainably and cost-effectively.
a. Partner with major employers to promote off-peak commuting, compressed work weeks, and telecommuting policies.
b. Integrate land use and transportation planning to reduce trip distances and support mixed-use, transit-oriented development.
c. Work with employers to implement parking management strategies, such as parking cash-out programs, reduced parking incentives, and shared parking agreements.

5. Reduce Traffic and Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Alleviate roadway congestion by shifting trips to more efficient and shared modes. a. Reduce VMT through coordinated land use planning, improved transit access, and promotion of walking, biking, and shared mobility.
b. Expand carpool and vanpool initiatives and strengthen outreach to large employment centers.
c. Collaborate with regional agencies to establish performance measures and reporting processes for VMT reduction programs, allowing for data-driven adjustments.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 23
321

6. Improve the Environment
Reduce transportation-related emissions and support climate action through cleaner travel modes.
a. Promote active transportation, transit, and zero-emission vehicle adoption through incentives, infrastructure, and education.
b. Encourage business participation in regional climate action goals through TDM compliance and sustainability programs.
c. Integrate TDM strategies into broader sustainability, air quality, and public health initiatives to maximize co-benefits.

7. Benefit Workers and Residents
Make commuting more affordable, flexible, and accessible for all of Moreno Valley’s workforce and communities.
a. Work with employers to offer commuter benefit programs that reduce transportation costs and provide flexible travel options.
b. Improve multimodal access to job centers, educational institutions, and training facilities across the city and region.
c. Design travel programs that align with workers’ schedules and family needs, including late-shift transportation and childcare-friendly routes.

8. Enhance the Business Environment
Foster sustainable economic growth and competitiveness through improved transportation access and mobility solutions.
a. Support economic development by strengthening multimodal connections to employment centers, logistics hubs, and retail districts. b. Assist businesses in attracting and retaining employees through mobility benefits, flexible commute options, and transportation partnerships. c. Work with developers and property managers to integrate TDM programs and multimodal access into new and existing developments.
d. Promote site design standards that encourage walking, biking, and transit use to create vibrant commercial areas.
24 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
....
-
ui1f
322

STRATEGIES AND

MEASURES
323
IV. STRATEGIES AND

MEASURES
The following section presents a comprehensive set of TDM strategies developed for Moreno Valley. These strategies are designed to support the City’s adopted goals for improving mobility, enhancing transportation choices, promoting safe and equitable travel, reducing VMT, and fostering sustainable economic growth.

Each strategy in the Toolbox is tailored to address specific transportation challenges and opportunities identified through stakeholder input, policy review, and local context analysis.

The strategies align with one or more of the City’s overarching mobility goals, ensuring that implementation efforts are both targeted and measurable.

HOW TO USE THESE CUTSHEETS:
• Strategy – A concise title for each TDM initiative or program. • Full Description – Detailed explanation of how the strategy would be implemented in Moreno Valley, including key partners, target users, and operational approach. • Related Issue in Moreno Valley – The local challenge or barrier the strategy aims to address.
• Example(s) of Successful Application – Real-world examples from other cities or agencies that have implemented similar programs.
• Regional Organizations Most Likely to Implement – Primary agencies, employers, or regional partners responsible for leading or supporting the strategy. • Level of Effort (5 = Most) – An estimate of the relative implementation effort required, considering complexity, coordination, and resources needed. • Relative Effectiveness (5 = Most) – An estimate of the potential impact on travel behavior change and mobility outcomes.
• Applicable Goals – The numbered mobility goals, in priority order, that the strategy supports (e.g., “2. Promote Safe, Efficient, and Equitable Travel”).

By linking each strategy to the City’s mobility goals, this table provides a clear roadmap for action. It serves as both a planning tool for prioritizing initiatives and a reference for tracking progress toward measurable outcomes. Strategies can be implemented individually or in combination, allowing for flexibility in program roll-out based on funding, partnerships, and community needs.
26 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
324

CATEGORIES OF STRATEGIES

EDUCATION & MARKETING
• Launch a Regional Marketing Campaign
• Provide Workplace Travel Resources &
Planning
• Offer Personalized Travel Planning
• Employer Sustainability Pledge Program
• Host/Co-Host Organizational
Recognition

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
• Support E-Bike Subsidy/Voucher
• Parking Strategies (Unbundling, CashOut, etc.)
• Support Reimbursement for Guarantee
Ride Home (GRH) Employer-Led TDM
Partnerships
• Promote Carpool Matching and
Incentives
• Offer Clean Commute Incentives
• Promote Commuter Tax Benefits

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS &

COORDINATION
• Support First & Last Mile Shuttles
• Promote Vanpool Matching
• Promote Micromobility
• Promote Institutional and Major Employer
Shuttles
• Promote Mobility Hubs
• Support the Development of Employer
Partnerships
• Support Safe Routes to School/Commute
to School
• Develop Local Land Use Policy Guidance

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
• Develop Employer Policy Toolkit
• Develop a Travel Options/TDM Program
Website
• Develop Facility Amenities Toolkit
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 27
..... •••
¥
325
A. LAUNCH A REGIONAL MARKETING CAMPAIGN
Promote non-SOV travel regionally

FULL DESCRIPTION
Coordinate with RCTC for regional messaging and integrate RTA branding. Position as part of city’s economic development strategy to brand Moreno Valley as a sustainable employer destination.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter and WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley

EDUCATION & MARKETING

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Low visibility of options. Reinforces outreach through City's existing media channels.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, RCTC, WRCOG, SCAG

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Lake County IL; NFRMPO

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Develop a unified brand and key messages (cost savings, time savings, reliability, safety). • Create a media mix plan (social, radio, bus ads, employer channels); co-brand with RTA/IE Commuter.
• Run seasonal campaigns (e.g., Back to School Transit, Winter Vanpool Savings). • Provide toolkits to employers and community groups for local amplification. • Measure reach and engagement; A/B test messages and refine quarterly. • Showcase commuter testimonials and local success metrics (VMT reduced).

Improve
Mobility
Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Safe, Efficient,
Equitable
Travel
Improve the
Environment
Benefit
Workers and
Residents
Enhance
Business
Environment
Efficiency in
Transportation
System
Reduce
Traffic and
VMT
Enhance
Transportation
Choices
28 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
326

EDUCATION & MARKETING
B. PROVIDE WORKPLACE TRAVEL RESOURCES & PLANNING
Tailored employer TDM engagement

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with RCTC (IE Commuter) and RTA to assess employer needs, develop resources, and educate on benefits, cost savings, retention, and recruitment advantages. Supports economic development goals of retaining and attracting sustainability-minded employers, particularly around Moreno Valley Mall, College Park, and Lake Perris. Linked to VMT reduction metrics.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter and WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley funds

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Employers need simple resources and tools to start TDM efforts.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, Employers, RCTC, RTA

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Go Glendale; Grand Rapids

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Survey employers (by size/sector) to identify commute barriers and benefits policies; segment by quick wins vs. deeper support.
• Create a plug-and-play employer toolkit (telework, flex schedules, transit/vanpool benefits, parking cash-out templates).
• Offer 1:1 technical assistance and brown-bag trainings; schedule quarterly workshops by employment district.
• Collect mode-share data semiannually; adjust assistance based on outcomes and employer feedback.

EDUCATION & MARKETING
C. OFFER PERSONALIZED TRAVEL PLANNING
Tailored commute planning

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with RCTC (IE Commuter) and RTA to provide personalized trip plans. Focus outreach to major employment hubs.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter and WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley funds

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Lack of information for commuter travel. Helps address long commutes by offering flexible route options.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, Employers, RCTC, RTA

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Go Glendale; SANDAG

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Create a simple intake (origin, destination, schedule, constraints) online and at pop-up events.
• Train transportation coordinators to deliver 1:1 plans (transit, vanpool, bike, microtransit) including time/cost comparisons.
• Focus outreach at major employers, malls, campuses, and community centers; offer on-site ‘Commute Clinics.’
• Follow up after 30/90 days to troubleshoot barriers.
• Track adoption and persistence; iterate recommendations by user segment. • Bundle with starter incentives (free week pass or vanpool trial) for first-time participants.

EDUCATION & MARKETING
D. EMPLOYER SUSTAINABILITY PLEDGE PROGRAM
Voluntary employer commitments to TDM

FULL DESCRIPTION
Launch a pledge program to encourage and support employers committing to mode shift, VMT reduction, and sustainable commute practices. Employers would make a formal commitment to integrate TDM practices into its operations and culture.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter and WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Need for employer buy-in.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Go Glendale; Brisbane

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Design pledge tiers (Bronze/Silver/Gold) with specific TDM actions and targets. • Launch with founding signatories; provide toolkits and technical assistance. • Create a public dashboard of pledges and progress; update quarterly. • Offer recognition (badges, window decals, press mentions) and link to awards program. • Renew pledges annually; escalate commitments over time.

EDUCATION & MARKETING
E. HOST/CO-HOST ORGANIZATIONAL RECOGNITION
Awards for TDM participation

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with regional agencies to sponsor awards. Recognize sustainability leaders as part of economic development messaging.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
1 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter and WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Need for positive visibility. Reinforces business community involvement and visibility.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

Employers, City, RCTC WRCOG

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
NFRMPO; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Define award categories (e.g., Most Improved Non-SOV Rate, Vanpool Champion, Small Business Leader).
• Set transparent criteria and application process; recruit a review panel (City/RCTC/ WRCOG).
• Promote nominations through Chamber and employer networks; provide application templates
• Host an awards event (or integrate into an existing City/business event); provide certificates and media coverage.
• Publish winners’ case studies; encourage peer learning among employers. • Repeat annually and align with Rideshare Week or Earth Month.

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
F. SUPPORT E-BIKE SUBSIDY / VOUCHER
Income-based subsidies for e-bike purchases

FULL DESCRIPTION
Provide targeted subsidies for the purchase or lease of e-bikes. Target employers as a benefit to attract talent and enhance sustainability image.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
4 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC
• SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Builds on e-bike grant funding and rising interest in micromobility.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

SCAG, WRCOG, CARB, SCAQMD

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Denver; Alameda; Carlsbad

ACTIONS NEEDED
Improve
Mobility
Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Safe, Efficient,
Equitable
Travel
Improve the
Environment
Benefit
Workers and
Residents
Enhance
Business
Environment
Efficiency in
Transportation
System
Reduce
Traffic and
VMT
Enhance
Transportation
Choices
• Secure funding (RCTC, WRCOG, Caltrans
and CABR/SCAQMD grants) and select
participating retailers; include online
purchase verification.
• Coordinate with employers to offer
optional employer match or payroll
purchase plans for staff.
• Require basic safety education (online
module) prior to voucher redemption;
promote helmet and lock add-ons.
• Prioritize e-bikes for commute trips;
include incentives for secure bike parking
at workplaces.
• Monitor redemptions, trip purposes, and
self-reported mode shift; adjust rebate
levels accordingly.
• Design an income-based rebate structure
(e.g., higher rebates for lower-income
residents; equity set-asides).

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 33
331

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
G. PARKING STRATEGIES (UNBUNDLING, CASH-OUT, ETC.)
Monetary incentives to encourage lower vehicle ownership and use

FULL DESCRIPTION
Many leases bundle parking into the cost of housing or employment, which removes incentives to use other modes. Parking unbundling, or charging separately for parking, lets people only pay for the spaces they need, saving money and encouraging alternatives like carpooling or transit.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Caltrans, SCAG, and WRCOG grants and/or technical
assistance
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Reduces VMT and traffic congestion, better use of land.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, WRCOG

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
SANDAG; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Set up a parking cash-out option to be implemented to allow employers to provide commuters with a financial incentive instead of free parking, helping reduce congestion around job centers and retail areas.
• Identify and evaluate parking resources and policies in currently land development code.

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
H. SUPPORT REIMBURSEMENT FOR GUARANTEED RIDE

HOME (GRH) EMPLOYER-LED TDM PARTNERSHIPS
Income-based subsidies for e-bike purchases

FULL DESCRIPTION
Guaranteed Ride Home provides commuters who regularly carpool, vanpool, bike, walk or take transit to work with a free ride home when emergencies arise. This is a supporting strategy for participants enrolled in other TDM programs such as vanpool, carpool, transit commuter programs.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter
• CARB and SCAQMD grants
• Employers

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Lack of after-hours transit, carpool and vanpool travel. Helps mitigate concerns about being stranded, especially for shift or off-peak workers without fixed-route access.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

Employers, RCTC, RTA

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
OCTA; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Define GRH ride-hail reimbursement rules (eligible events, caps, approved providers). • Integrate TNC reimbursement into the GRH enrollment workflow; publish how-to guides for commuters and HR.
• Set up reimbursement processing (receipts, audit checks) with fast turnaround. • Market to shift workers and transit riders as a safety net for non-SOV travel. • Monitor usage patterns and costs; adjust caps or eligibility to maintain program integrity.

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
I. PROMOTE CARPOOL MATCHING AND INCENTIVES
Provide incentives and tools for employees to share rides

FULL DESCRIPTION
Provides free carpool and vanpool matching services to commuters, facilitating the formation of shared rides. Federal code (Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code) allows employers to provide tax-exempt funds to commuters for parking, transit, and vanpool.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
5 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter
• CARB and SCAQMD grants
• Employers

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Stakeholders noted that large employers need flexibility in their commuting modes. Need for a tailored program for the March Air Reserve Base.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

IE Commuter, Employers

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
IE Commuter’s $5/day rideshare incentive;
VanClub subsidies; employer-based programs in
Riverside County and San Bernardino County.

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Survey employers (by size/sector) to
identify commute barriers and benefits
policies; segment by quick wins vs. deeper
support.
• Create a plug-and-play employer toolkit
(telework, flex schedules, transit/vanpool
benefits, parking cash-out templates).
• Pilot with 5–10 anchor employers; set
measurable targets (e.g., +10% non-SOV
mode share in 12 months).
• Provide outreach collateral for HR/
Recruiting highlighting retention and cost
benefits of TDM programs.
• Collect mode-share data semiannually;
adjust assistance based on outcomes and
employer feedback.

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
J. OFFER CLEAN COMMUTE INCENTIVES
Incentives for tracked clean commutes

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with IE Commuter, RTA, Metrolink and employers to offer rewards. Market to employers as a retention perk and measurable VMT reduction strategy.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC/IE Commuter
• CARB and SCAQMD grants
• Employers

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Need for tangible commuter rewards. Supports use of incentives like Metrolink passes ($5/ day).

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

Employers, IE Commuter

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
IE Commuter; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Select a tracking platform (IE Commuter) and define eligible modes and verification methods.
• Establish incentive rules (e.g., points per clean trip; monthly reward tiers); include equityfocused bonuses. • Fund rewards (transit passes, gift cards) and anti-fraud checks; align with GRH for confidence.
• Recruit employers; provide enrollment kits and monthly reporting dashboards. • Promote via citywide challenge months; highlight leaderboards by employer/site. • Evaluate participation, mode shift, and VMT reduced; refine incentives annually.

INCENTIVES & FACILITATION
K. PROMOTE COMMUTER TAX BENEFITS
Education on pre-tax commuter programs

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with employers to promote and assist in implementing commuter tax benefits.

Position as a cost-saving workforce benefit and sustainability tool for attracting employers.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• CARB and SCAQMD grants
• Employers

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Aligns with interest in providing low-cost benefits to workers.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, employers

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
SANDAG; OCTA

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Provide employers a step-by-step guide to set up IRS Section 132(f) pre-tax benefits for transit/vanpool.
• Offer HR trainings and template payroll forms; highlight tax savings for both employer and employee.
• Track enrollments and estimated tax savings; publicize employer success stories.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
L. SUPPORT FIRST & LAST MILE SHUTTLES
Shuttles bridging transit centers, commuter rail and job centers

FULL DESCRIPTION
Partner with RTA for service integration and agencies for funding. Target key employment hubs like Moreno Valley Mall and College Park. Promote as a competitive advantage for employers and a VMT reduction strategy.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
5 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB, and SCAQMD grants
• RCTC
• Employers
• City

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Bridges gaps between Metrolink and employment centers. Addresses connectivity issues, especially for those commuting to/from transit stations and job centers.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

Employers, City, RTA, RCTC

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
SANDAG; OCTA

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Map last-mile gaps from Metrolink and
key transit stops to major employment
clusters; define service zones and stop
locations.
• Co-design route alignments and schedules
with RTA to meet trains/buses; plan for
shift-change surges.
• Pursue funding (RCTC, grants) and
employer cost-sharing; select vehicles
(accessible shuttles).
• Pilot shuttle operations for 6–12 months;
integrate fare/payment with RTA where
possible.
• Market to employers and workers; provide
real-time arrival info and rider alerts.
• Evaluate ridership, on-time performance,
and VMT reduction; modify routes/hours
based on data.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
M. PROMOTE VANPOOL MATCHING
Promote vanpool options across employment clusters

FULL DESCRIPTION
Leverage IE Commuter and Enterprise Vanpool programs with large employers such as March AFB, industrial centers, Moreno Valley Mall, College Park, and Lake Perris employers.

Emphasize employer retention and attraction benefits.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC
• Employers
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Stakeholders noted that Large employers need flexibility in their commuting modes. Need for a tailored program for the March Air Reserve Base.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

RCTC (IE Commuter), Enterprise,
Employers

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Enterprise Vanpool; IE Commuter

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Coordinate with IE Commuter and
Enterprise to identify high-potential
origins/destinations (e.g., March AFB,
industrial clusters).
• Host on-site ‘Start a Vanpool’ events at
major employers; pre-screen interested
riders and form cohorts by ZIP and shift
time.
• Provide a city ‘vanpool starter’ incentive
(e.g., first-month subsidy) layered on
RCTC’s monthly subsidy; promote HOV/
express lane benefits.
• Work with employers to offer preferred
parking and payroll deduction for vanpool
payments; add vanpool info to onboarding
materials.
• Create a March AFB–tailored vanpool
program addressing base access rules and
shift schedules in coordination with base
leadership.
• Track active vanpools, seats filled, and
VMT reduced; publish quarterly metrics
and success stories.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
N. PROMOTE MICROMOBILITY
Promoting e-bike/scooter and micromobility options

FULL DESCRIPTION
Work with regional agencies to integrate micromobility into first/last mile planning. Include employer outreach on workforce benefits and sustainability metrics.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC, WRCOG
• Caltrans, SCAG, CARB and SCAQMD grants

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Supports safe, flexible active transportation, promotes employer outreach.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, CARB, RCTC

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Alameda; Lake County IL

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Adopt a micromobility ordinance (parking/operating rules, geofencing, speed limits, data sharing).
• Designate bike and scooter parking corrals near transit stops, activity centers, and mobility hubs; sign and mark them.
• Coordinate with operators for equitable service zones and discounted access programs. • Offer safety education and rider etiquette campaigns; collaborate with schools and employers.
• Launch a phased pilot; require performance reporting (rides/vehicle/day, parking compliance).
• Integrate wayfinding and trip-planning links across City/RTA channels; evaluate expansion by demand.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
O. PROMOTE INSTITUTIONAL AND MAJOR

EMPLOYER SHUTTLES
Promote and facilitate shuttle programs

FULL DESCRIPTION
Promote and facilitate funding for shuttles at hospitals, college campuses, and other institutional or major employer campuses.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Employers
• RCTC
• CARB and SCAQMD grants

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Limited campus transit access. Targets hospital complexes and Moreno Valley College for expanded TDM service and institutional support.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

Employers, RCTC

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
OCTA; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Convene hospitals and Moreno Valley College to assess demand by shift/class schedules. • Co-design shuttle routes/timetables with RTA; plan direct links to transit hubs and parking lots.
• Identify funding (institutional contributions, RCTC grants) and operating partners. • Pilot during peak semesters/shift periods; ensure ADA vehicles and real-time info. • Promote to students/staff/patients; coordinate with campus ID systems for fare-free boarding.
• Evaluate ridership and parking pressure relief; refine service each term.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
P. PROMOTE MOBILITY HUBS
Promote the implementation of nodes that offer transportation options and connect various modes

FULL DESCRIPTION
Collaborate with regional agencies to fund and site mobility hubs.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC
• SCAG, WRCOG, and Caltrans grants
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Gaps in multimodal integration. Aligns with vision for mobility hub at Downtown Center.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

WRCOG, RTA, RCTC, City

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
SANDAG; Alameda

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Select hub sites based on demand and network connectivity (Mall, College Park, Downtown Center).
• Identify concepts and needs: transit bays, micromobility parking/charging, bike storage, wayfinding, and ride-hail zones.
• Coordinate with RTA for service patterns and with agencies for funding. • Integrate hubs into land use plans and development approvals.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
Q. SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYER

PARTNERSHIPS
Promote and support employer-led TDM partnerships for the delivery of commuter programs, shuttles, and other TDM services

FULL DESCRIPTION
Promote and expand employer partnerships to serve industrial clusters, hospitals, campuses, and other major employment centers. These partnerships provide a structure for employers to collaboratively fund and coordinate commuter programs, shuttles, and other TDM services.

Position employer partnerships as tools for workforce attraction and retention, supporting both economic development and sustainability goals.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC and WRCOG
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Key to formalizing employer-led initiatives.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

WRCOG, City, RCTC

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Brisbane; Carlsbad

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Develop a unified brand and key messages
(cost savings, time savings, reliability,
safety).
• Create a media mix plan (social, radio, bus
ads, employer channels); co-brand with
RTA/IE Commuter.
• Run seasonal campaigns (e.g., Bike Month,
Winter Vanpool Savings).
• Provide toolkits to employers and
community groups for local amplification.
• Measure reach and engagement; A/B test
messages and refine quarterly.
• Showcase commuter testimonials and local
success metrics.
• RCTC funds and RTA coordinates services
in TMAs for industrial clusters, hospitals,
and campuses.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
R. SUPPORT SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL /

COMMUTE TO SCHOOL
Creating Safe Routes to School in coordination with the School Districtand connect various modes

FULL DESCRIPTION
Provide toolkits and resources, such as an active transportation network maps, to educate the teachers, students, and families on how they can travel more safely. Moreno Valley can partner with the school district to develop and hold educational and fun campaigns, programs, and activities to encourage students to bike and walk to school.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
4 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Caltrans, SCAG, WRCOG
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Supports safe, flexible active transportation into schools.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City, School District

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
OCTA; SANDAG

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Work with School District Leaders to create routes.
• Run seasonal campaigns (e.g., Walk to school day, bike buses). • Measure reach and engagement; A/B test messages and refine quarterly. • Identify stakeholders and champions to facilitate walk to school programs. • Record Student participation through surveys and create state of the program reports to monitor.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS & COORDINATION
S. DEVELOP LOCAL LAND USE POLICY GUIDANCE
Support compact, mixed-use growth near major transit hubs

FULL DESCRIPTION
Collaborate with RCTC on TOD near Metrolink/RTA stops; integrate TDM into zoning reforms to reduce VMT.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
5 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
5 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Caltrans, SCAG, WRCOG.
• City of Moreno Valley.

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Addresses land use-related VMT and helps integrate TDM with long-range planning and climate goals.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

City

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
OCTA; Go Glendale

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Draft TOD overlays and street standards near transit; reduce parking minimums and add TDM requirements.
• Publish developer guidance for on-site TDM (subsidized transit, bike rooms, unbundled parking).
• Align with General Plan updates; incorporate TDM in CEQA mitigation/conditions of approval.
• Coordinate with RCTC/RTA on station-area plans and first/last mile improvements. • Train staff and developers on compliance and reporting. • Monitor VMT outcomes from entitled projects; iterate guidance annually.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
T. DEVELOP EMPLOYER POLICY TOOLKIT
Assistance to employers to shift commute behavior

FULL DESCRIPTION
Work with regional agencies to develop ready-to-use templates for telework, alternative schedules, and transit benefits. Tie to economic development outcomes and VMT reduction.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
3 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC, WRCOG.
• City of Moreno Valley.

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Supports employer-driven strategies to shift commute behaviors.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

WRCOG, City

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
OCTA; Carlsbad

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Draft template policies (telework, compressed weeks, flexible shifts, transit/vanpool benefits, parking cash-out).
• Legal review and HR formatting; publish as downloadable, fillable documents. • Host webinars and office hours for HR/managers to implement policies quickly. • Include measurement guidance (pre/post surveys, mode-share tracking). • Create a recognition program for early adopters; share case studies. • Update templates annually based on employer feedback and best practices.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
U. DEVELOP A TRAVEL OPTIONS / TDM PROGRAM WEBSITE
Centralized hub of information about non-SOV travel options

FULL DESCRIPTION
Moreno Valley will work with RCTC (IE Commuter), RTA, Metrolink, and others to develop a website aggregating all travel options. The website should highlight travel options available, promotions and incentives and sustainability messaging.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
1 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
1 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC, SCAG, and WRCOG
• Caltrans grants

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Addresses widespread lack of awareness of TDM programs and incentives. Ease of access to multimodal info was a recurring request.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

IE Commuter (Inland Empire);

RCTC, RTA

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
RCTC (IE Commuter), RTA

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Convene City, RCTC (IE Commuter), RTA,
Metrolink, and WRCOG to define scope,
content owners, and update cadence.
• Inventory existing resources (IE Commuter,
RTA routes, Metrolink schedules, vanpool
sign-up, micromobility, park-and-ride,
GRH) and identify gaps.
• Design sitemap and page templates;
include sections for employer benefits,
commuter tools, and sustainability/VMT
metrics dashboards.
• Integrate real-time transit info and tripplanning links; embed vanpool/carpool matching and GRH enrollment.
• Stand up hosting, analytics, and
accessibility compliance (ADA, WCAG);
assign maintenance roles and quarterly
refresh schedule.
• Launch with a coordinated marketing push
via City channels, employers, and regional
partners; offer a ‘Find Your Best Commute’
campaign.
• Track analytics (sessions, tool clicks,
employer resource downloads) and iterate
content quarterly.

FULL DESCRIPTION
Develop toolkits to provide tools and resources to help organizations implement TDM strategies and promote non SOV transportation choices.

LEVEL OF EFFORT
2 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
3 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• RCTC, WRCOG
• City of Moreno Valley

RELATED GOALS

RELATED ISSUE IN MORENO VALLEY
Supports implementation of bike amenities in partnership with gyms and other businesses.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MOST LIKELY TO IMPLEMENT:

WRCOG, RCTC

EXAMPLE(S) OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION
Grand Rapids; Carlsbad

ACTIONS NEEDED
• Create standard specs and placement guides for bike racks/lockers, showers, wayfinding, and lighting.
• Map priority sites for amenities (transit stops, employment centers, civic facilities). • Package funding resources (grants, WRCOG/RCTC programs) and sample bid documents. • Deploy quick-build pilots (temporary racks, pop-up wayfinding) to test demand. • Train plan check/inspection staff on amenity standards; add requirements to development review.
• Share case studies with ROI (reduced parking demand, higher employee satisfaction).

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 49
347

PERFORMANCE

MONITORING &

EVALUATION
50 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
348
V. PERFORMANCE MONITORING
& EVALUATION
This chapter outlines how Moreno Valley will monitor, measure, and evaluate progress toward its TDM goals. Performance tracking covers multiple dimensions of program success, including stakeholder roles and responsibilities for data management, participation and employer engagement, program funding, travel behavior outcomes, marketing reach, and delivery of supporting facilities. Together, these measurements establish a consistent framework for understanding program activity, documenting outcomes, evaluating investment decisions, and guiding ongoing refinement of TDM strategies.

Clear expectations for monitoring and reporting will support transparency, improve accountability, and help the City and its partners continuously enhance TDM program performance. As discussed in the review of peer cities TDM programs, strong employer partnerships with compliance reporting are critical to obtain data to monitor and evaluate programs. Performance metrics enable staff to evaluate how program activities are advancing broader TDM goals and demonstrate the value of TDM strategies to potential partners and funders.

It should be recognized that additional tracking or reporting requirements may be necessary to satisfy future grant agreements or specific funding programs. The metrics recommended in this plan are not intended to meet all potential funding criteria, and program staff may need to augment these measures as new opportunities and reporting obligations arise.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 51
- .... ~ ~ ~ . :~'- '-' ~- -~:-- · ~
-:;,.,;-- .
349

TYPES OF MEASURES
This section identifies the primary types of measures recommended for tracking TDM implementation in Moreno Valley. Each measurement type reflects a different dimension of TDM success, from employer enrollment and commuter incentives to multimodal trips, outreach performance, and the construction of supporting facilities.

Participation
Reporting
Participation measures evaluate how
employers, residents, and commuters
are actively involved in TDM programs
and services across Moreno Valley. These
measures help illustrate program reach,
enrollment, demand, and show how
successfully TDM strategies are being
adopted in practice.

Additionally tracking participation over time
also can highlight growth, retention, and
behavior shifts supported by the program’s
goals and outcomes.

METRICS FOR EVALUATIONS:
• Employers enrolled or participating
individuals registered or enrolled in
programs
• Carpool and vanpool matches created
• Counts of employees receiving tax
benefits
• Total participants in subsidies or incentive
programs
• Participant/User Survey Results
Drive
Alone
Carpool
Walk
Bike
Public Transit
Uber, Lyft, etc.
52 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
350
Funding
Funding measures capture the amount
of financial and organizational resources
obtained to support TDM implementation,
incentives, and staffing capacity. Tracking
funding helps assess program sustainability,
competitiveness for grants, and the ability
to build long-term TDM infrastructure. These
measures also illustrate the capacity to
invest into the program to deliver strategies
to residents, employees and visitors.

METRICS FOR EVALUATIONS:
• Program funding secured (local, state,
federal)
• Grants awarded or approved
• Program staffing levels dedicated to TDM
delivery
• Incentives, vouchers or cash-outs
distributed or redeemed
VMT Reduction
VMT reduction measures quantify the effect
of TDM participation on travel behavior,
including shifts away from single-occupant
vehicle trips. These measures demonstrate
how carpools, vanpools, transit use, and
other sustainable modes reduce total vehicle
miles traveled in the community. Tracking
VMT outcomes supports performance
reporting, emissions reduction analysis, and
long-term mode shift monitoring.

METRICS FOR EVALUATIONS:
• VMT reductions from carpools and
vanpools
• SOV trips shifted or reduced
• Total VMT reduced through TDM
participation
5 million vehicle trips avoided

IMPACTS OF TDM

A SCORECARD IS A GREAT TOOL TO ILLUSTRATE
THE IMPACT OF THE TDM PROGRAM.
2 million gallons of gas saved 60 million commute miles reduced 50,000 alternative transportation
users supported
50 million pounds of Carbon
dioxide (C02) release prevented
That’s over 80,000 days not
spent driving a car
It would take almost 300 tanker
trucks to hold that much gas
That’s roughly 22,000 trips from
San Francisco to New York
If all those users drove singlefile, the traffic jam would stretch 140 miles
That reduction would require
4,000 homes not using
electricity for a year
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 53
00 ••••••
351
Marketing & Travel
Resources
Marketing and resource measures track how TDM
information and tools are accessed, distributed, and used by local employers, commuters, and residents. These measures show program visibility, awareness, and the effectiveness of digital resources such as websites and travel planning tools.

Monitoring outreach participation also helps identify new partners and gaps in communication or education.

METRICS FOR EVALUATIONS:
• Website visits or trip-planning tool usage
• Employers and individuals reached through outreach
• Number of pledge program enrollments, recognition
awards
• Toolkits, guides, or resource packets delivered or
downloaded
Facilities & Infrastructure
Facility measures reflect the multimodal improvements
delivered through TDM planning and design, including
amenities, service access, and active transportation facilities.

These measures help demonstrate tangible outcomes
such as new bike lanes, mobility hubs, shelters, or shuttle service expansions. Tracking facility investments over time confirms whether programs are translating into real-world infrastructure that supports sustainable travel.
• New or upgraded facilities (bike parking, shelters, end-oftrip amenities) • Miles of new bicycle lanes or separated facilities
• Shuttle routes or service miles operated
54 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
1 hour S5 mins
2h0urs0mms
• g 9 2hol.l's 11 mIns
Ii . g 22. g 9.,
1139~M-20~PM
26 ~ m, Abou: 1 hour 55 mlfls
Unlvers<ty S Park
Q 22 Bus towards Sooth to Perns Stauon
352

IMPLEMENTATION

FRAMEWORK
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 55
353
VI. IMPLEMENTATION

FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION
This Implementation Framework outlines how Moreno Valley and its partners can move from planning to action. It defines the roles and responsibilities of City departments, regional agencies, employers, and community stakeholders in advancing the TDM strategies identified in this plan. This framework also highlights key partnerships and funding opportunities that can accelerate program delivery and maximize the return on investment.

The framework organizes recommended actions into near-term, mid-term, and long-term priorities, providing a practical roadmap for phased implementation. Near-term actions focus on foundational programs and quick wins that build momentum. Mid-term actions expand and refine services based on early successes and performance data. Long-term actions position the City for sustained improvements, incorporating emerging technologies and adapting to changing travel patterns.

By clearly linking actions to responsible parties, potential funding sources, and an achievable timeline, this framework ensures that Moreno Valley’s TDM vision can be implemented effectively, with measurable progress toward the City’s mobility, equity, and sustainability goals.

This chapter provides guidance for the successful implementation of TDM strategies in Moreno Vally. While the TDM Toolbox recommends a list of strategies, this section outlines additional recommendations and timeline guidance to support the implementation of the TDM strategies into future planning studies and program development. 56 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
354

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN

ADVANCING TDM GOALS
Advancing TDM goals in Moreno Valley depends on the contributions of several stakeholder groups with distinct roles in planning, implementation, and program support. This section outlines the primary responsibilities of each group including City departments, employers, developers, regional partners and transportation providers to clarify how they participate in delivering TDM strategies and supporting multimodal access.

City Departments
• Leadership & Coordination – Serve
as the central coordinator for TDM
program delivery, ensuring strategies
align with City mobility, equity, and
sustainability goals.
• Infrastructure & Operations –
Plan, design, and implement local
improvements that support non-SOV
travel (e.g., mobility hubs, bike and
pedestrian facilities, shuttle stops,
micromobility zones).
• Policy & Regulation – Integrate
TDM requirements into zoning,
development review, and land
use policies; support parking
management reforms; ensure
accessibility standards (ADA
compliance) are met.
• Marketing & Outreach – Use City
communication channels to promote
programs such as Emergency Ride
Home, e-bike incentives, and vanpool
matching; recognize employers and
community partners for participation.
• Data & Evaluation – Collect
performance metrics for VMT
reduction, mode shift, and equity
outcomes; adjust programs based on
results.

Regional Agencies
and TDM Providers
RCTC, RTA, IE Commuter, WRCOG,
SCAG, Caltrans, SCAQMD, CARB
• Program Delivery – Lead or co-lead
regionwide programs such as vanpool
services, mobility hub development,
Emergency Ride Home, micromobility
integration, and marketing
campaigns.
• Funding & Grants – Identify, secure,
and manage funding for TDM
projects, including federal/state
grants, regional sales tax programs,
and public-private partnerships.
• Technical Assistance – Provide
employers and local jurisdictions with
tools, policy templates, and expertise
for implementing TDM programs.
• Data Sharing and Monitoring –
Deliver TDM strategies, share data,
coordinate monitoring activities,
review performance, and providing
analytical insights that help evaluate
effectiveness of programs.
• Service Integration – Coordinate
transit, first/last mile, park and ride
lots, parking, and micromobility
services across jurisdictional
boundaries.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 57
355
Employers
• Workplace Programs – Offer
commuter benefits such as transit
subsidies, vanpool participation, bike
amenities, and flexible schedules.
• Policy Adoption – Implement internal
policies for telecommuting, parking
cash-out, and alternative work hours to
reduce peak travel demand.
• Employee Engagement – Promote
TDM options to staff through
onboarding, HR communications, and
incentives; participate in recognition
programs and sustainability pledges.
• Data Sharing – Track and share
employee commute data to help
evaluate program effectiveness.

Community
Stakeholders
(e.g., neighborhood associations,
advocacy groups, educational
institutions, non-profits)
• Advocacy & Awareness – Promote
safe, accessible, and affordable
transportation options within the
community.
• Partnerships – Collaborate with the
City, regional agencies, and employers
to support first/last mile solutions,
educational campaigns, and safety
initiatives.
• Local Expertise – Provide feedback on
program design to ensure strategies
meet the needs of underserved or
transit-dependent populations.
• Participation – Engage in pilot
projects, attend public workshops,
and help recruit participants for TDM
programs.
58 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
356

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
The following selection outline a suggested timeline’s phased approach to launching, expanding, and institutionalizing Moreno Valley’s TDM Program. While each strategy has been assigned an expected delivery window, the timing may be adjusted as partnerships strengthen, staff capacity evolves, or new funding opportunities emerge. The City’s TDM Program Manager and staff will be responsible for annually reviewing program performance, monitoring participation trends, and determining whether the strategies underway are advancing the Plan’s goals. Continuous monitoring, reporting, and evaluation should guide the refinement of priorities, the sequencing of activities, and the allocation of resources throughout all phases of implementation.

Program
Launch and
Near-Term
Strategies (0-2
Years)
Program
Growth Midterm strategies
(3-6 Years)
Program
Maturity -
Long-Term
Strategies (6+
Years)
2026 2028 2034
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 59
➔
357
Program Launch and Near-Term
Strategies (0-2 Years)
Focus: Leverage existing resources and staff to launch the program and secure additional funding.

In the first two years, the City should focus on establishing the TDM team, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and building the operational foundation needed to launch early program activities. This period emphasizes quick-impact strategies that require minimal funding, limited policy changes, and short development timelines. Early efforts will focus on publicfacing resources, workplace travel planning, basic marketing, introductory incentives, and initial employer engagement. During this phase, staff will actively cultivate partnerships with major employers, institutions, transit providers, and regional agencies. By the end of Year 2, employer relationships, partner roles, and internal processes should be formalized, providing a stable platform for delivery of the initial near-term strategies.

NEAR-TERM STRATEGIES (0-2 YEARS)
• Develop Employer Policy Toolkit
• Develop Facility Amenities Toolkit
• Support the Development of Employer Partnerships
• Develop a Travel Options / TDM Program Website
• Launch a Regional Marketing Campaign
• Provide Workplace Travel Resources & Planning
• Offer Personalized Travel Planning
• Promote Carpool Matching and Incentives
• Promote Vanpool Matching
• Support Reimbursement for GRH / Employer-Led Partnerships 60 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
358
Program
Growth Midterm strategies
(3-6 Years)
Focus: Expanding Programs, Establishing
Presence, and broaden external
partnerships/participants.

Between Years 3 and 6, the City should
evaluate the performance of early TDM
activities, refine them based on user
feedback, and expand programming through
employer-driven initiatives and targeted
incentives. With partnerships established
and early adoption outcomes documented,
the program can begin to introduce highervalue offerings into their programs such as increasing e-bike subsidies, parking
management tools, growing employer
policy toolkits, and facility planning
guidance support. This phase prioritizes
supporting employers and institutions as
direct program partners, enabling them to
implement tailored incentives and internal
transportation policies that reinforce
mode shift and improve access for their
employees. During this period, the City
should continue to monitor outcomes, adjust
program elements, and scale strategies that
demonstrate the strongest performance.

MID-TERM STRATEGIES (3-6 YEARS)
• Promote Commuter Tax Benefits
• Support E-Bike Subsidy / Voucher
• Host / Co-Host Organizational Recognition
• Offer Clean Commute Incentives
• Employer Sustainability Pledge Program
• Support Safe Routes to School / Commute
to School
Program Maturity
- Long-Term
Strategies (6+
Years)
Focus: Scaling Programs from pilots to
permanent citywide programs supported
by strong partnerships
As the TDM program matures, staff
resources, funding capacity, and
demonstrated performance will enable
more ambitious, infrastructure-supported
TDM strategies. At this stage, Moreno
Valley should focus on scaling partnerships,
investing in successful programs, and
aligning TDM outcomes with long-range
transportation planning and land use
decisions.

Long-term strategies should focus on
supporting sustained behavioral change with
long-term service and program offerings.

The long-term strategies would strengthen
multimodal access, district-level demand
management, and more permanent mobility
investments. This period should also
advance long-range policy and regulatory
actions, support a full program refresh to
evaluate emerging needs, new travel trends,
and promote regional performance data
management.

LONG-TERM STRATEGIES (6+ YEARS)
• Support First & Last Mile Shuttles
• Promote Institutional and Major Employer
Shuttles
• Promote Micromobility
• Promote Mobility Hubs
• Develop Local Land Use Policy Guidance
• Parking Strategies (Unbundling, Cash-Out,
etc.)
Moreno Valley TDM Plan 61
ffl
359

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
62 Moreno Valley TDM Plan
Ill
360

SUMMARY
The Moreno Valley Transportation Demand Management Plan provides a comprehensive and coordinated framework to guide the City’s multimodal vision, shape travel behavior, and support more efficient, sustainable, and accessible transportation choices for residents and workers. The Plan begins with a clear purpose statement and a description of why TDM is essential for meeting community mobility needs, economic development goals, and longterm sustainability objectives (Chapter I). The Needs Assessment (Chapter II) evaluates existing conditions, planning context, peer practices, public input, and Moreno Valley’s multimodal opportunities and constraints. These findings establish a data-driven foundation for the Plan and identify the strengths, challenges, and opportunities that shape the City’s TDM direction.

Building on this understanding, the Vision and Goals chapter (Chapter III) defines a unified mission statement and eight core program goals that frame Moreno Valley’s approach to commuter support, multimodal access, vehicle miles traveled reduction, and partnership development. These goals provide clear direction and performance expectations for program delivery. The Strategies and Measures chapter (Chapter IV) translates the vision into 22 actionable program strategies supported by web tools, employer partnerships, marketing and outreach, mobility services, and infrastructure improvements. These strategies represent a balanced mix of near-term actions, pilot programs, and long-term system enhancements that can be scaled over time.

As implementation begins, the City can prioritize early strategies, build internal and external partnerships, and apply for federal, state, and regional funding to launch TDM initiatives.

The Plan provides clear mechanisms for performance tracking, enabling Moreno Valley to evaluate participation, measure multimodal outcomes, and refine programs based on demonstrated results. By following the roadmap established in this Plan, Moreno Valley can systematically build organizational capacity, expand program offerings, and improve multimodal access throughout the community. Over time, the City is positioned to strengthen mobility choices, reduce congestion, enhance employer support, and advance broader sustainability and economic development goals.

Moreno Valley TDM Plan 63
361
362
Report to City Council
ID: 26-0065 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development
Director
AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2026
TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PEN24-0023),
CHANGE OF ZONE (PEN24-0024), CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (PEN24-0022), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 37858 (PEN24-0021) (REPORT OF: COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT) (DISTRICT 3)
TITLE SUMMARY: Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023), Change of Zone (PEN24-0024),
Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022), and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) for the Development of a 37- Lot Single-Family Residential Planned Unit Development.

DISTRICT: District 3
Recommendation(s)
That the City Council:

1. AFFIRM AND UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project by:

A. Adopting Resolution No. 2026-[next in order] affirming and upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project consisting of General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023), Change of Zone (PEN24-0024), Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022), and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) for the Development of a 37-Lot Single-Family Residential Planned Unit Development (Appeal PAA26-0001); or 363
ID: 26-0065 Page 2

2. REVERSE the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project by:

A. Adopting Resolution No. 2026-[next in order]:
i. Approving and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Proposed Project, on file with the Community Development Department, incorporated herein by this reference, which was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and reflects that the City Council acting on behalf of the Lead Agency reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and exercised its independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts; and ii. Approving and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Proposed Project.

B. Adopting Resolution No. 2026-[next in order]:
i. Approving General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) based on the Recitals, Evidence contained in the Administrative Record and Findings as set forth in Resolution No. 2026-[next in order] and any necessary and corresponding amendment to the City’s Zoning Atlas to reflect the proposed changes in the zoning classification and/or redistricting associated with the General Plan Amendment; and ii. Approving Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022) and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) based on the Recitals, Evidence contained in the Administrative Record and Findings as set forth in Resolution No. 2026-[next in order].

C. Introducing Ordinance No. [next in order] approving Change of Zone (PEN24- 0024) and corresponding amendment to the City’s Zoning Atlas and the conditions of approval, based on the Recitals, Evidence and Findings contained in the Administrative Record of the proceedings.

BACKGROUND
An Appeal was filed by Shay Mueller of RC Hobbs Companies, (the “Appellant”), appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s “Proposed Project” consisting of applications for a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential (R10) with a Zone Change to change the zoning designation to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District, as well as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for a 4.81-acre site that will be subdivided into 37 single-family residential lots, on the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle, east of Moreno Beach Drive (“Project Site”).

The purpose of the PUD is to establish flexible standards to encourage innovation in housing types and provide amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions, such as common open spaces and recreational areas. The GPA, along with the CZ, will allow 364
ID: 26-0065 Page 3
for the change of the current land use designation from Residential 5 to Residential 10 and the zoning designation from Residential 5 (R5) District to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District, which allows for a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre.

On January 8, 2026, the Proposed Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny the requested General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024), which effectively resulted in denial of the Proposed Project, since approval of the General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024) are prerequisites to approving the Proposed Project’s Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022), and Tentative Tract Map (PEN24-0021).

The General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone were denied based on the following findings:
(a) Since the City is a general law city, any zoning ordinance must be consistent with its general plan, so that all land uses and zoning ordinances must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan; (b) The proposed general plan amendment is not in the public interest since the City is currently preparing a comprehensive general plan update, which is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in February or March 2026 with the proposed zoning of the subject site remaining Residential 5 (R5) which has been analyzed under the draft EIR for the general plan update as being zoned Residential 5 (R5); (c) Changing the land use designation of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) to Residential 10 (R10) would be detrimental to the public interest and convenience, and welfare of the City in that it would be inconsistent with existing low-density residential development adjacent to the west of the proposed project site; (d) Increasing the residential zoning density for the project site is not necessary for meeting the City’s regional housing needs assessment objectives with respect to affordable housing;
(e) The proposed general plan amendment is not in the City’s best interest in that the City’s Pro-Housing Jurisdiction designation received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development is based on the Project Site being zoned (R5) rather than (R10);
(f) The proposed General Plan Amendment will not promote public safety in that it can potentially add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to accommodate traffic based on the proposed (R10) zoning of the Project Site; (g) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will not promote public safety in that it will potentially add increased traffic to Bradshaw Circle that 365
ID: 26-0065 Page 4
would jeopardize emergency access to the community of 8 homes located adjacent to Buvan Court, which is accessed via Bradshaw Circle; (h) The proposed Change of Zone is inconsistent with the General Plan as set forth in the Findings of Denial of the General Plan Amendment;
(i) The proposed Change of Zone will adversely affect the public safety and general welfare in that higher-density development will add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to standards to accommodate traffic based on the proposed increase in density of the project site.

Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC) Section 9.02.240 (Appeals), the Appellant has provided a letter attached to this report stating the specific reasons for the appeal and providing justification for: 1) the Proposed Project’s consistency with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan; and 2) how the Proposed Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare.

SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to MVMC Section 9.02.040 (General Plan Amendments), the City Council is vested with the authority to approve General Plan Amendments. However, Section

9.02.040 further provides that the Planning Commission’s action recommending disapproval of a proposed General Plan Amendment, regardless of how such amendment was initiated, shall be final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) consecutive calendar days after the Planning Commission’s recommended disapproval. The Planning Commission’s action was taken on January 8, 2026, and the Appellant filed its appeal on January 12, 2026, within the 10-day appeal period.

Section 9.02.040 additionally provides that the City Council may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove any proposed General Plan Amendment. However, prior to any final City Council action regarding the General Plan Amendment, if there is any substantial modification proposed by the City Council that was not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed substantial modification must first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation.

Finally, if the City Council is inclined to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, it must make the following findings:

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with existing goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan;

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare.

3. That the proposed Change of Zone amendment is consistent with the general plan and its goals, objectives, policies, and programs, and with any applicable specific plan;

4. That the proposed Change of Zone amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
366
ID: 26-0065 Page 5

5. That the proposed Change of Zone amendment is consistent with the purposes and intent of Title 9 (Planning & Zoning).

SUMMARY
Shay Mueller of RC Hobbs Company (“Applicant”) is appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project’s General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) to Residential 10 (R10) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024) to change the zoning of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) District to Residential Single-Family (RS10) District, which effectively resulted in the denial of the Proposed Project’s Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022) for a Planned Unit Development with associated amenities and public improvements and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) to subdivide a 4.81- acre site into thirty-seven (37) single-family residential lots, located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle (APNs: 478-090-018, 478-090-024 and 478-090- 025) (“Project Site”).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation of the Project Site to Residential (R10), a Change of Zone to change the zoning designation of the Project Site to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the 4.81-acre Project Site into 37 single-family residential lots, on property located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle.

General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment (GPA) application was submitted to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) to Residential 10 (R10). The purpose of the R10 land use designation is to provide for a variety of residential products and to encourage innovation in housing types with amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions, such as common open spaces and recreational areas. The R10 land use designation allows for a maximum density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre.

Change of Zone
A Change of Zone (CZ) application was submitted to rezone the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) District to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District. Under the Proposed Project’s current Residential (R5) District, a maximum of 5.0 units per net acre is allowed; however, as proposed, the Proposed Project would allow for 7.9 units per net acre. To obtain the desired units per gross acre, a Change of Zone is required to rezone the Project Site to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District, which allows up to 10.0 units per net acre, thereby allowing the proposed 7.9 units. The Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District is intended to provide residential development on small single-family lots with amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions and allows a maximum density of 10 units per acre.
367
ID: 26-0065 Page 6
Planned Unit Development
The Proposed Project includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows the proposed development to establish unique criteria for standards such as setbacks, lot size, lot width, lot depth, and building separation.

Flexible development standards are allowed in exchange for a higher level of detail and amenities within the Proposed Project than typically are required for standard residential development. As proposed, the Proposed Project is consistent with the PUD standards as outlined in Section 9.03.060 (Planned Unit Developments) of Title 9 (Planning & Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code.

Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) encourage housing that is varied in type, design, form of ownership, and size. The Proposed Project offers three architectural styles (Spanish, French, and Traditional) and floor plans with varying building designs and rooflines. The newly formed residential lots will range in size from 3,047 to 5,016 square feet.

Tentative Tract Map
The Proposed Tentative Tract Map No. (TTM) 37858 has been designed consistent with the PUD standards and will subdivide three contiguous parcels totaling 4.81 acres, into 37 single-family residential and lettered (common area) lots. As proposed, two bioretention drainage basins (Lots A and Lot B) are located along the western portion of the Project Site, including a linear 3-foot-wide drainage ditch (Lot C) located along the eastern property line, a landscape easement (Lot D) located along the south perimeter boundary line, and an approximately 10,983 square-foot open space recreation lot (Lot E) located near the center of the residential development, including landscaping, walkways, a playground, basketball court, and covered seating areas. The Proposed Project includes private yards within the single-family residential lots and a total of 15,961 square feet of open space. The Proposed Project complies with the City’s development standards for Tentative Tract Maps.

Site/Surrounding Area
The Project Site is approximately 4.81-acres, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue.

Surrounding land uses to the north of the Project Site are developed with existing singlefamily residential dwellings within the Residential Single Family 5 (R5) and Residential Single Family 10 (RS10) Districts, and with a combination of developed, vacant and unimproved development within the R5 and R10 Districts to the west and east, and Specific Plan 193 Medium Low Density Residential to the south.

Access/Parking
The Proposed Project’s vehicular access will be via two driveways on Bradshaw Circle, which will connect to the development’s internal roadways. Access to the dwelling units will be provided via private driveways off internal roads. The Proposed Project provides 368
ID: 26-0065 Page 7
pedestrian paths for non-vehicular onsite circulation and for connection to existing sidewalks and bike lanes adjacent to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will also provide garages, driveways, and on-street parking. Each residence includes a twocar garage, with a minimum of two driveway parking spaces.

Bradshaw Circle will be improved with new paving, curbs, gutters and street lighting.

These off-site street improvements will provide improved access to the Project Site and surrounding properties. The Proposed Project includes dedication of the Bradshaw Circle right-of-way to the City of Moreno Valley.

Design/Landscaping
The PUD guidelines include three different two-story floor plans and three different architectural styles: Spanish, French, or Traditional, with multi-level rooflines, and an earth-tone color scheme. Exterior designs include stucco finishes, detailed roof elements, and decorative windows and doors. The amenities for the Proposed Project include a playground, basketball court, and covered seating areas with barbecue grills and enhanced landscape walkways.

The PUD includes typical plot plan configurations for the new homes and typical front yard landscaping. The Proposed Project’s Homeowners Association (HOA) will perform all common area maintenance throughout the Project Site. The proposed landscape consists of typical street trees along all public streets and drought-tolerant shade trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Turf would be provided in active-use areas in common open spaces. The Proposed Project, as designed, meets the City’s minimum landscape requirements.

Outdoor lighting will include wall-mounted fixtures and pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roads. The proposed common/recreation area will have accent/security lighting throughout.

REVIEW PROCESS
All appropriate outside agencies have considered the Proposed Project as part of the standard review process. The Proposed Project was reviewed by the Project Review Staff Committee as required by the Municipal Code. Following subsequent revisions and reviews by staff, the Proposed Project’s submittals were determined to be complete.

ENVIRONMENTAL
An Initial Study was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study examined the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides information in support of the finding that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) serves as the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Proposed Project. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment, in that all the potential impacts of the Proposed Project, as mitigated, have been reduced to levels of 369
ID: 26-0065 Page 8
insignificance. Technical studies prepared in support of the IS/MND include the following:

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, Biological Technical Report, MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey, Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview, Preliminary Soil Investigation, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Noise Impact Analysis, and Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis.

Mitigation measures are recommended for the Proposed Project in the following areas:

Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, which are incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be used to identify and track the mitigation measures. The measures for cultural resources have been included to address input from the Tribal governments. The measures are intended to ensure that potential cultural resources that might be discovered are protected. Based on the Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant impact to the environment.

The 30-day public comment period for the Notice of Intent (NOI) of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration began on October 17, 2025, and ended on November 17, 2025 (State Clearing House Number 2025100768). Comment letters received from Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Riverside County Flood Control and SoCal Gas are attached to the Staff Report.

Written comments received after the preparation of this staff report will be provided at the public hearing.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Affirm and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Proposed Project.

2. Reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Proposed Project by adopting the Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopting the Resolution approving General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023); adopting the Ordinance approving Change of Zone (PEN24-0024); adopting the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022) and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) based on the findings set forth in the above-reference Resolutions and the Administrative Record.

NOTIFICATION
Consistent with the applicable Moreno Valley Municipal Code provisions and exceeding the posting and distance requirement of applicable state law, a public notice was sent to all property owners of record within 600 feet of the Project Site, and notices were posted on the Project Site and published in the Press Enterprise Newspaper, at least 10 days prior to the Appeal Hearing. As of the preparation of this Staff Report, no public comment has been received regarding the Proposed Project.
370
ID: 26-0065 Page 9

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Grace Espino-Salcedo Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Associate Planner Community Development Director
Concurred By:

Miguel Del Rio
Senior Planner

Positive Environment: Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

Public Facilities and Capital Projects: Ensure that needed public facilities, roadway improvements, and other infrastructure improvements are constructed and maintained.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs
371
ID: 26-0065 Page 10
Report Approval Details
Document
Title:

STAFFREPORT_CDD_BRADSHAWCOLLECTION_sbq_final.docx
Attachments: - Appeal Letter.pdf
- CC_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_Denying Appeal PAA26-
0001_sbq_final.docx
- CC_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_Adopting ISMND MMRP_Draft
sbq_final.docx
- EXHIBIT A_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_ISMND.pdf
- Appendix A. AQ, GHG, and Energy Impact Study.pdf
- Appendix B. Biological Technical Report.pdf
- Appendix C. Burrowing Owl Survey.pdf
- Appendix D. Cultural Assessment.pdf
- Appendix E. Preliminary Soil Investigation.pdf
- Appendix F. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.pdf - Appendix G. Preliminary Hydrology Report.pdf
- Appendix H. Preliminary WQMP.pdf
- Appendix I. Noise Impact Analysis.pdf
- Appendix J. VMT Analysis.pdf
- EXHIBIT B_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_NOI to Adopt Mitigated NEG DEC.pdf
- EXHIBIT C_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_MMRP.pdf
- CC_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_Approving Appeal PAA26-
0001_sbq_final.docx
- EXHIBIT A_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_GPA Land Use
Designation Map.pdf
- EXHIBIT B_RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX_Conditions of Approval (CUP TTM).pdf
- EXHIBIT A_ORDINANCE NO. XXX_Change of Zone Atlas Pg
101.pdf
- Project Plans.pdf
- CC_ORDINANCE NO. XXX_Change of Zone_Bradshaw
Collection_sbq_final.docx
- PC Public Comments.pdf
Final
Approval
Date:

Feb 11, 2026
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Sean Kelleher
372
ID: 26-0065 Page 11
Natalia Medina
Felicia London, MPA
Launa Jimenez
Brian Mohan
Patty Rodriguez
373
5172 Queen Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 317-2041

PROJECT APPEAL LETTER
Monday, January 12, 2026
City of Moreno Valley
Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Community Development Director
14177 Frederick Steet
Moreno Valley, CA 92533
Re: Planning Commission Denial of PEN24-0021, PEN24-0022, PEN24-0023 & PEN24-0024 (TTM 37858, CUP for PUD, GPA & ZC)
Bradshaw Street property in the City of Moreno Valley

Dear Ms. Frausto-Lupo:

On behalf of RC Hobbs Companies, we are filing an appeal to be heard by City Council regarding the denial of our project by the City of Moreno Valley Planning Commission this past Thursday, January 8, 2026.

The Planning Commission made findings that:
 The proposed Change of Zone and General Plan amendment are not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan; and  The proposed Change of Zone and General Plan amendment would adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare.

During the deliberations by the Planning Commission, the individual Planning Commissioners all commented on the project in the positive, stating that they liked the land plan, the architecture, and the smaller lot sizes for the project, as that would enable the future homes to be more affordable than new homes on conventional R5 lots. The issue of affordability is an ongoing concern in the California Real Estate market, and innovative projects like our project are absolutely consistent goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare.

The City Council has previously approved two other single family tentative maps along Bradshaw Circle (PEN 18-005 & PEN18-0154), both of which were conditioned to complete the frontage street improvements for Bradshaw Circle to Public Standards and offer the Bradshaw Street Right-ofWay to the City of Moreno Valley for public street and utility purposes..

Our project was specifically conditioned to complete not only the street improvements along our frontage along Bradshaw Circle, but also the street improvements including curb and gutter improvements for the balance of Bradshaw Circle so the City can accept Bradshaw Circle as a publicly maintained street.

We request the City Council consider our proposed project under this appeal at a future City Council Hearing.
374
5172 Queen Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 317-2041
For reference here is the status of the existing Bradshaw Circle Street improvements and right-ofway. Bradshaw Circle along our property frontage was created by PM 8114 which recorded on August 5, 1977. An offer of dedication for public street and utility purposes was made for the Bradshaw Circle Right-of-Way to the County of Riverside, but not accepted as the street was not improved to County Standards.

Bradshaw Circle right-of-way was subsequently offered again for dedication for public street and utility purposes by two subsequent Parcel Maps, PM 11822 recorded October 11, 1978, and PM 16636 recorded September 23, 1981
City Staff stated that the street improvements would not be accepted for public maintenance until all of the street improvements are completed to current City Standards. Until such time, each underlying property is responsible for the maintenance of the street improvements. With TTM 37858 we propose to complete the street improvements for Bradshaw Circle to public standards so the City will accept the street improvements for Public Maintenance..

The purpose of a PUD is to establish flexible standards to encourage innovation in housing types and provide amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions, such as common open space and recreational areas. Our project meets all of the objective criteria of a PUD and we encourage the City Council to reconsider this project approval.

Please call me if you have any questions regarding these items.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Beers, PE
375
Attachment “_“
1 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
APPEAL (PAA26-0001)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PEN24-0023) TO AMEND

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND CHANGE OF
ZONE (PEN24-0024) CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION AND ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL 5 (R5)
TO RESIDENTIAL 10 (R10) FOR THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CACTUS

AVENUE AND BRADSHAW CIRCLE, EAST OF MORENO
BEACH DRIVE (APNS: 478-090-018, 478-090-024, AND
478-090-025)
WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and has the authority to approve amendments to the City’s General Plan and the City’s Zoning Atlas; and WHEREAS, Shay Mueller of RC Hobbs Companies (“Applicant”) submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation to Residential (R10), a Zone Change to change the zoning designation to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for a 4.81-acre site that will be subdivided into 37 single-family residential lots (“Proposed Project”), on the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle, east of Moreno Beach Drive (APNS: 478- 090-018, 478-090-024, and 478-090-025) (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2026, a duly noticed Public Hearing was duly conducted by the Planning Commission to consider the Proposed Project, at which time all interested persons were provided with an opportunity to testify and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2026, the Planning Commission denied the Proposed Project, by denying General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024) based on the following findings: (a) Since the City is a general law city, any zoning ordinance must be consistent with its general plan, so that all land uses and zoning ordinances must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan; (b) The proposed general plan amendment is not in the public interest since the City is currently preparing a comprehensive general plan update, which is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in February or March 2026 with the proposed zoning of the subject site remaining Residential 5 (R5) which has been analyzed under the draft EIR for the general plan update as being zoned Residential 5 (R5); ( c) Changing the land use designation of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) to Residential 10 (R10) would be detrimental to the public interest and convenience, and 376
2 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
welfare of the City in that it would be inconsistent with existing low-density residential development adjacent to the west of the proposed project site; (d) Increasing the residential zoning density for the project site is not necessary for meeting the City’s regional housing needs assessment objectives with respect to affordable housing; (e )The proposed general plan amendment is not in the City’s best interest in that the City’s ProHousing Jurisdiction designation received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development is based on the Project Site being zoned (R5) rather than (R10); (f) The proposed General Plan Amendment will not promote public safety in that it can potentially add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to accommodate traffic based on the proposed (R10) zoning of the Project Site; (g) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will not promote public safety in that it will potentially add increased traffic to Bradshaw Circle that would jeopardize emergency access to the community of 8 homes located adjacent to Buvan Court, which is accessed via Bradshaw Circle; (h) The proposed Change of Zone is inconsistent with the General Plan as set forth in the Findings of Denial of the General Plan Amendment; and (i) The proposed Change of Zone will adversely affect the public safety and general welfare in that higher-density development will add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to standards to accommodate traffic based on the proposed increase in density of the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant timely filed an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project, and considered the Proposed Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, at a duly noticed Appeal Hearing of the City Council, all interested persons were provided an opportunity to testify and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, the City Council affirmed and upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of the Proposed Project based on the Planning Commission’s findings supporting the denial of General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals and Exhibits
That the foregoing Recitals and attached exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.
377
3 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
Section 2. Evidence
That the City Council has considered all the evidence submitted into the Administrative Record related to the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Moreno Valley General Plan and all other relevant provisions contained therein; (b) Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code and all other relevant provisions referenced therein;
(c) Applications for General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024) as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto; (d) Applications for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (PEN24-0022) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) (PEN24-0021); (e) Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration and all documents, records and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the public hearings;
(f) Testimony and/or comments from Applicant and its representatives during the public hearings; and
(g) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that was provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the public hearings.

Section 3. Findings
That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record as set forth above, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) Since the City is a general law city, any zoning ordinance must be consistent with its general plan, so that all land uses and zoning ordinances must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan;
(b) The proposed general plan amendment is not in the public interest since the City is currently preparing a comprehensive general plan update, which is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in February or March 2026 with the proposed zoning of the subject site remaining Residential 5 (R5) which has been analyzed under the draft EIR for the general plan update as being zoned Residential 5 (R5);
(c) Changing the land use designation of the Project Site from Residential 5 (R5) to Residential 10 (R10) would be detrimental to the public interest and convenience, and welfare of the City in that it would be inconsistent with existing low-density residential development adjacent to the west of the proposed Project Site;
(d) Increasing the residential zoning density for the project site is not necessary for meeting the City’s regional housing needs assessment objectives with respect to affordable housing;
378
4 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
(e) The proposed general plan amendment is not in the City’s best interest in that the City’s Pro-Housing Jurisdiction designation received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development is based on the Project Site being zoned (R5) rather than (R10);
(f) The proposed General Plan Amendment will not promote public safety in that it can potentially add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to accommodate traffic based on the proposed (R10) zoning of the Project Site;
(g) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will not promote public safety in that it will potentially add increased traffic to Bradshaw Circle that would jeopardize emergency access to the community of 8 homes located adjacent to Buvan Court, which is accessed via Bradshaw Circle; (h) The proposed Change of Zone is inconsistent with the General Plan as set forth in the Findings of Denial of the General Plan Amendment; and (i) The proposed Change of Zone will adversely affect the public safety and general welfare in that higher-density development will add more traffic to Cactus Avenue, which is currently not built out to standards to accommodate traffic based on the proposed increase in density of the project site.

Section 4. Affirming and Upholding Planning Commission’s Denial.

That based on the foregoing Recitals, Administrative Record and Findings, the City Council hereby affirms and upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of a General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024).

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
That all the provisions as heretofore adopted by the City Council that conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 6. Severability
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. Effective Date
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of adoption. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February, 2026.
379
5 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
___________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:
____________________________
M. Patricia Rodriguez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
Exhibit:

Exhibit A: General Plan Land Use Designation
380
6 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )
I, M. Patricia Rodriguez, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2026-XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the _____ day of______, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)
__________________________________________
M. PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
381
7 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
Exhibit A
General Plan Land Use Designation
382
Attachment “_“
Resolution No. YYYY-____
Date Adopted: Month DD, YYYY
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR BRADSHAW COLLECTION

PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CACTUS

AVENUE AND BRADSHAW CIRCLE, EAST OF MORENO BEACH
DRIVE (APNS: 478-090-018, 478- 090-024, AND 478-090-025) WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for projects that are subject to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA1) and CEQA Guidelines2; and WHEREAS, Shay Mueller of RC Hobbs Companies (“Applicant”) has submitted applications a General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023), Change of Zone (PEN24-0024), a Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022) for a Planned Unit Development, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) for the proposed development of a 37-lot singlefamily residential project with associated public improvements (“Proposed Project”), located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle, east of Moreno Beach Drive on approximately 4.81 acres (APNS: 478-090-018, 478-090-024, and 478- 090-025) (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, Planning Division Staff completed an Initial Study (environmental assessment) (“IS”) for the Proposed Project and based on the environmental assessment, recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with Section 6 (ND Procedures) of the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070- 15075; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was duly noticed and circulated for public review for a period of 30 days commencing on October 17, 2025, through November 17, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), which is a program for reporting and monitoring the Proposed Projects’ mitigation measures, was prepared for the Proposed Project and circulated with the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and ______________________
1Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177
2California Code of Regulations §§15000-15387
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2026, a duly noticed Public Hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission to consider the approval of the Proposed Project; and 383
2 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny the General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024), thereby denying the entire Proposed Project, which was contingent upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023) and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed a timely Appeal Application (PAA26-0001) appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of General Plan Amendment (PEN24-0023):
and Change of Zone (PEN24-0024); and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, a duly noticed Appeal Hearing was conducted by the City Council to consider the Appeal Application (PAA26-0001) along with Conditional Use Permit (PEN24-0022), Tentative Tract Map No. 37858 (PEN24-0021) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, in the exercise of its own independent judgment, the City Council determined that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reduce the Proposed Project’s potential environmental to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment which would otherwise require the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals and Exhibits
That the foregoing Recitals and attached exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

Section 2. Evidence
That the City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the Administrative Record for the MND and MMRP, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Proposed Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
(b) Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit B;
(c) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C; (d) Staff Reports prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the public hearings;
(e) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at or prior to the Public Hearings.

Section 3. Findings
384
3 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
That based on the content of the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record as set forth above, the City Council makes the following findings:
(a) That all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP, have been reduced to levels of insignificance, and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that would otherwise require the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report; (b) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines and are consistent with the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act;
(c) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency for the Proposed Project; and
(d) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.

Section 4. Adoption
That, based on the foregoing Recitals, Administrative Record and Findings, the City Council hereby adopts the IS/MND attached hereto as Exhibits A, respectively, and the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
That all the provisions as heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 6. Severability
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. Effective Date
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of adoption.

Section 8. Certification
That the Secretary of the City Council shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February, 2026.
385
4 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
___________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:
____________________________
M. Patricia Rodriguez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Exhibit C: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)
__________________________________________
M. PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
Exhibit A

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
387
6 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
Exhibit B

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 388
7 Resolution No. 2026-XX
Date Adopted: Month DD, 2026
Exhibit C

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
389

CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR THE BRADSHAW
COLLECTION PROJECT (TTM 37858)
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858)
Case Numbers: PEN24-0021 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37858), PEN24-0022 (Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development), PEN24-0023 (General Plan Amendment), and PEN24-0024 (Change of Zone)
October 2025
Lead Agency

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA
92552
Prepared By EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
WHE R E OR AM.\ .\OAR
390
This page intentionally left blank.
391
Bradshaw Collection Project Page iii City of Moreno Valley

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION........................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED......................................... 32 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)........................................... 32 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................... 33 ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES................................................. 34 I. AESTHETICS........................................................................................... 34 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES........................................ 37 III. AIR QUALITY........................................................................................... 38 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 43 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................. 46 VI. ENERGY.................................................................................................. 50 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................... 54 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................... 59 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................... 61 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................... 65 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................... 71 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 74 XIII. NOISE...................................................................................................... 75 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................ 79 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................. 80 XVI. RECREATION.......................................................................................... 83 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................ 83 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................... 86 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 91 XX. WILDFIRE................................................................................................ 93 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ 95 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS..................................................... 97 392
Bradshaw Collection Project Page iv City of Moreno Valley TABLES
Table AES-1: Project Development Standard Consistency. .......................................................35 Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds ....................................................39 Table AQ-2: Construction Emissions Summary ..........................................................................39 Table AQ-3: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions...............................................................40 Table AQ-4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction ...................................................41 Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Summary of Operations......................................................41 Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption...................................50 Table E-2: Estimated Construction Vehicle Trip Related Fuel Consumption ..............................51 Table E-3: Estimated Annual Operational Energy Consumption.................................................51 Table E-4: 2006 General Plan Consistency................................................................................52 Table E-5: 2024 General Plan Consistency................................................................................53 Table GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................60 Table WQ-1: Total Retail Water Supply (AFY)............................................................................67 Table LU-1: Consistency with RS10 District Development Standards........................................72 Table N-1: City of Moreno Valley Maximum Continuous Sound Levels ......................................75 Table N-2: Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements ...........................................................75 Table N-3: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor ..................................76 Table N-4: Roadway Noise Impacts – Existing Conditions .........................................................76 Table N-5: Roadway Noise Impacts – 2040 Conditions..............................................................77 Table N-6: Onsite Operational Noise Levels...............................................................................77 Table N-7: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................78 Table N-8: Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................................78 Table T-1: Project Trip Generation..............................................................................................84

FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location ..........................................................................................................7 Figure 2. Local Vicinity ..................................................................................................................9 Figure 3. Aerial View .................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4a. Existing General Plan Designation ............................................................................ 13 Figure 4b. Proposed General Plan Designation ........................................................................ 15 Figure 5a. Existing Zoning...........................................................................................................17 Figure 5b. Proposed Zoning........................................................................................................19 Figure 6: Conceptual Site Plan....................................................................................................21 Figure 7: Wall and Fence Plan....................................................................................................23 Figure 8: Offsite Improvements ...................................................................................................25 Figure 9: Conceptual Landscape Plan.........................................................................................27 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Separate Document) APPENDICES (Separate Documents)
A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
B Biological Resources Technical Report
C Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys and MSHCP Consistency
D Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview E Preliminary Soil Investigation
F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G Preliminary Hydrology Report
H Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan I Noise Impact Analysis
J Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
393
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 1 City of Moreno Valley

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(IS/MND) FOR BRADSHAW

COLLECTION PROJECT
(TTM 37858)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Name: Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858)
Findings: It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Mitigation measures necessary to avoid the potentially significant effects on the environment are included in the attached Initial Study, which is hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Moreno Valley has hereby agreed to implement each of the identified mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

1. Project Case Number(s): PEN24-0021 (Tentative Tract Map No. 37858), PEN24- 0022 (Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development), PEN24-0023 (General Plan Amendment), PEN24-0024 (Change of Zone)

2. Project Title: Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858)

3. Public Comment Period: October 17, 2025, through November 17, 2025

4. Lead Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Grace Espino-Salcedo, Planning Department
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, California 92552
(951) 413-3206
[email protected]
Documents Posted At: http://www.moval.org/cdd/documents/about-projects.html

6. Prepared By: Konnie Dobreva, JD
Meaghan Truman
Lauren Battle
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500, Irvine, California 92612 (949) 794-1180

7. Project Sponsor:

Applicant/Developer
WHERE OREAM .I .\OAR
394
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 2 City of Moreno Valley RC Hobbs Company
1428 Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866

8. Project Location: The Project site is approximately 4.81 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue in the eastern portion of the City of Moreno Valley (Project Site). Offsite improvements would include approximately 0.19 acres. The City of Moreno Valley (City) encompasses approximately 52 square miles of land within Riverside County and is bounded by the City of Riverside to the east; the City of Perris and Lake Perris State Recreation Area to the south; the Badlands mountain range and City of Beaumont to the east; and the Box Springs Mountains range and the City of Redlands (within San Bernardino County) to the north. See Figure 1, Regional Location.

Regional access to the Project Site is provided by State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 215 (I-215). Local access to the Project Site is provided by Moreno Beach Drive and Cactus Avenue. The Project Site is located within the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Sunnymead 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle.

9. General Plan Designation: Residential (5 du/ac)
Residential 5: The primary purpose of areas designated Residential 5 is to provide for single-family detached housing on standard sized suburban lots at a density of 5 dwelling units per net acre.

10. Specific Plan Name and Designation: N/A

11. Existing Zoning: Residential 5 District (R5)
Residential 5 District: The primary purpose of the R5 district is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This district is intended as an area for development of single-family residential and mobile home subdivisions at a maximum allowable density of 5 dwelling units per net acre, as indicated in Section

9.03.020 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC).

12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site Vacant Residential 5 Residential 5 (R5) District
North Single-Family Residential Residential 5 Residential 5 (R5) South Single-Family Residential Residential 10 Suburban Residential (SP 193 ML)
East Vacant/Undeveloped
Residential
10 Residential 10 (R10)
West Vacant/Undeveloped,
Single-family Residential Residential 5 Residential 5 (R5)

13. Description of the Site and Project:

Environmental Setting
395
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 3 City of Moreno Valley Existing Project Site
The Project Site consists of 4.81 acres and 0.19 acres of offsite improvements to make for a total disturbance area of 5 acres. The Project consists of nine parcels (onsite APNs 478-090-018, 478-090-024, 478-090-025) (offsite APNs 478-090-020, 478-090-021, 478-090-022, 478-090-023, 478-090-012 and 478-090-015) and is comprised of vacant and graded lots. Vehicular access to the site is provided by Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue as shown on Figure 2, Local Vicinity, and Figure 3, Aerial View. The perimeter of the site is partially secured by a chain-link fence along the perimeter of the site.

Existing vegetation at the Project Site consists of a dense cover of grasses as well as one Palo Verde and one Palm tree. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope of less than one percent across the site.

Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
As shown on Figure 4a, Existing General Plan Designation, the Project Site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Residential: Max. 5 du/ac (R5). The primary purpose of areas designated Residential 5 is to provide for single-family detached housing on standard sized suburban lots. The maximum allowable density is 5 dwelling units per net acre.

As shown on Figure 5a, Existing Zoning, the Project Site is currently zoned Residential 5 District (R5). The primary purpose of the R5 district is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This district is intended as an area for development of single-family residential and mobile home subdivisions at a maximum allowable density of five dwelling units per net acre, as indicated in MVMC Section

9.03.020.

Project Description
Introduction
The proposed Project would develop 37 single-family residential lots, onsite roadways with sidewalks, drainage infrastructure, and open space lots on the 4.81-acre Project Site (Project). The proposed Project would also contain offsite improvements within Brawshaw Circle. The improvements would repave Bradshaw Circle within parcels 478- 090-012, 478-090-015, 478-090-022, 478-090-023, 478-090-020, and 478-090-021 and provide new curbs, gutters and street lighting. Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the proposed site configuration following Project implementation, Figure 7, Wall and Fence Plan, shows the proposed walls and fencing for the Project, and Figure 8, Offsite Improvements, shows the proposed offsite improvements for the Project.

As the Project proposes a residential density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre, the Project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation from Residential: Max. 5 du/ac (R5) to Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10) and a Change of Zone from Residential 5 District (R5) to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District. The Project also requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37858) to consolidate existing parcels and establish 37 residential and open space lots, as well as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Project Characteristics
The single-family residences would range in size from 1,864 SF to 2,526 SF with a 396
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 4 City of Moreno Valley minimum lot size of 3,095 SF. The Project proposes three distinct floor plans, private yards, and two-car garages for the residential lots. In addition, the Project proposes lots designated for open space and drainage purposes. Two bioretention drainage basins (Lot A and Lot B) are located along the western portion of the Project site and a linear 3- foot-wide drainage ditch (Lot C) is located along the eastern property line. An approximately 10,983 SF recreation– open space lot (Lot D) is located near the center of the residential development, which would include landscaping, walkways, playground, basketball court, and seating areas. New walkways are also proposed throughout the residential development. The Project would provide private yards within the single-family residential lots. The Project would include a total of 15,961 SF of open space.

Architectural Design
The proposed single-family residences would be designed with Spanish, French, and Traditional architectural elements, multi-level rooflines, and an earth tone color scheme. In addition, the residences would incorporate stucco finishes, detailed roof elements, and decorative windows and doors in the exterior design. All units will be designed with four-sided architecture using the details from the front elevation.. The tallest roofline of the two-story residences would be less than 30 feet in height.

The proposed two-story single-family residences would include three different floor plans and two different architectural styles to provide aesthetic variation throughout the community. Plan 1, Plan 2, and Plan 3 homes would include a traditional two-story home design with either Spanish, French, or Traditional architectural elements.

Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways on Bradshaw Circle, which would provide access to the community’s internal roadways. The singlefamily residences would be accessed by private driveways along the internal roadways, as shown on Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan. The Project also includes pedestrian paths to provide for non-vehicular onsite circulation and for connection to existing sidewalks and bike lanes adjacent to the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would provide garage, driveway, and on-street parking. Each residence would have a two car garage with two driveway parking spaces.

Bradshaw Circle would be improved with new paving, curbs, gutters and street lighting along parcels 478-090-015, 478-090-022, 478-090-023, 478-090-020, and 478-090- 021.

This offsite street improvement would provide improved access to the Project site and surrounding properties. The Project would include dedication of the Bradshaw Circle right- of-way to the City of Moreno Valley.

Landscaping
Landscaping proposed as part of the Project would consist of drought-tolerant ornamental trees, shrubbery, and groundcover. Turf would be provided in active use areas in common open spaces. The landscape plan would be consistent with the City’s landscape and irrigation design standards, as provided in MVMC Section 9.17.030. 397
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 5 City of Moreno Valley Figure 9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed landscaping for the Project.

Lighting
Outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the Project Site would be typical of single-family residential PUDs and would consist of wall-mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roadways. Nighttime lighting would be used as accent/security lighting in the park area. The Project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize offsite spill. The location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the MVMC.

Infrastructure Improvements
Water and Sewer
The proposed Project would install a new 8-inch diameter sewer line and 8-inch diameter water line within the Project’s proposed onsite private streets and within Bradshaw Circle where these new lines would connect to an existing 21-inch diameter sewer line and 12-inch diameter water line, respectively, within Cactus Avenue.

Drainage
In the existing condition, the topography of the Project Site is relatively flat with a small elevation change towards Bradshaw Circle. The Project site’s current surface runoff generally sheet flows to the southwest. In the developed condition, onsite flows would be conveyed to one of two onsite water quality bioretention basins (Lots A and B), and both of these basin lots would connect to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle that would connect to the existing Storm Drain Line F-4 within Cactus Avenue that is operated by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC).

Parcel Consolidation
TheProject would consolidate the three existing parcels (onsiteAPNs 478-090-018, 478- 090-024, 478-090-025) into one Tentative Tract Map with 37 residential lots. This consolidation would not affect the surrounding parcels in the project vicinity.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
As discussed, the Project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site to Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10) and Change of Zone to Residential Single- Family 10 (RS10) District in order to implement the Project, which proposes single-family residential uses at a density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre. MVMC Section 9.03.020 states that the primary purpose of the Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District is to provide for residential development on small single-family lots with amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions. The district is intended for subdivisions at a maximum allowable density of ten (10) dwelling units per net acre.

Following approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, the Project would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning classification associated with the Project Site.

As a result of Project implementation, all other offsite land use designations and zoning 398
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 6 City of Moreno Valley classifications in the Project vicinity would remain the same as under existing conditions.
399
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 7 City of Moreno Valley

CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction activities include demolition of the existing structures, pavement, and the existing utility infrastructure; grubbing, grading, excavation and re-compaction of soils; utility and infrastructure installation; building construction; roadway pavement; and architectural coatings. Approximately 8,097 cubic yards of soil are proposed to be exported during grading activities.

Construction activities for the Project would occur over 12 months and would begin in 2026 with the opening for Project occupancy in 2027. Construction activities would occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Pursuant to the MVMC Chapter 8.14.040, construction activities would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays and from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless written approval is obtained from the City building official or City engineer.

DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed Project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed Project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are State agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed Project.

The following discretionary approvals by the City, as Lead Agency, are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
• General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation from Residential 5: Max. 5 du/ac (R5) to Residential 10: Max. 10 du/ac (R10)
• Change of Zone from Residential 5 District (R5) to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM 37858)
• Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
400
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 8 City of Moreno Valley Regional Location
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 1
Colto n
ff'<-; Gr., 1-.:I T e r r.,ce
rand
____ ::~~----- Jtgrove
BOX
0 SPRINGS
MEAD
VALLEY
General
old Golf
Course

1.25 2.5
l.:0ma 11L!iAda

MOUNTAINS
f\llentone
B ry nl...,IA:lw r r - - -
..
--~~~oj~S~!_B:~~l!l.<?. ____ . ---___ • ______ . ,
Countl'of'Riv e rs ide C 1. 't,.., a 1mesa
o<c;,
l
Nortol
Youngl
......

Moreno Valley G)
l,l oreno Valley
March A ir
Reserve
Ba&e
I""•
~~ <!c ore
.,,
~
PE
5 Miles
Perris
LEY
Project Site
•
Sacr.:im ento 0
San r.:t nc1sco 0
C.A LIF OR 111 'I, 0
Fres no
I

G R E A T

B A S I N
NEVADA
Los Vegas 0
N
A
401
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 9 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
402
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 10 City of Moreno Valley Local Vicinity
Project Site
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 2
~
C
.c
()
.,
..
a:,
0 C
..
~
0 ::
~
0 .c
.,
'I
.,
a:,
0 C
~
0 :E
C]
;;;
,,
..
:::,
:E
Brodiaea Ave
0 Bradshaw Ci r
Cactus Av e
Arborgl enn Dr
Belleterre "'""
Brodi a ea
Cactu s A ve
l,1~re110 V~ li"Y
Rane h Co Ir Club
Grandvie"' I;
City of Moreno Val ley, City of Riverside, County of Riverside, San Bern ardino County, Bureau of Land Management, Esti, HERE, Garmin, INCREM ENT P, NGA.

USGS
N
A
403
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 11 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
404
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 12 City of Moreno Valley Aerial View
Project Site
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 3
D N
A
405
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 13 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
406
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 14 City of Moreno Valley Existing General Plan Designation
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 4a
RS
p
R3
R/0
R/0
R/0
RS
c::::J Residential : M ax. I du/ ac
Mixed Use
c::::J Residential : Max. 2 du/ ac
R3 I
R3 □□□ □□
R3
RS OS RlO RS
- Residential: Max. 5 or 15 du/ac - Planned Residential - Residential: Max. 10 du/ac Residential/Office
- Residential: Max. 15 du/ac - Office
c::::J Rural Residential: M ax 2.5 du/ac - Residential: Max. 20 du/ac - Co1nmercial - Business Park/Light Industrial
iiiiii Residential: Max. 3 du/ac
- Residential: Max. 5 du/ac
- Residentia l: Max. 30 du/ac
- Hillside Residentia l
- Open Space
- Public Facilities
407
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 15 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
408
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 16 City of Moreno Valley Proposed General Plan Designation
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 4b
R3
R2
R3
R3
-----=--R
3 ______J DB B
RS
D Rcsidcntia1.: Max. 1 du/ac
xed Use
D Residential: Max. 2 du/ac
R3 R3
R/O
R/O
RS
OS
D Residential: Max. 5 or 15 du/ac D Planned Residential D Residential: Max. IO du/ac D Residential/Office
• Residential: Max. I 5 du/ac D Office
D Rural Residential: Max 2.5 du/ac • Residential: Max. 20 du/ac • Commercial c=
D Residential: Max. 3 du/ac • Residential: Max. 30 du/ac D Residential: Max. 5 du/ac D Hillside Residential
D Business Park/Light Industrial
Open Space
RlO
D Public Facilities
D Floodplain
409
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 17 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
410
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 18 City of Moreno Valley Existing Zoning
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 5a
Residential S Distriet
Residential Single Family IO District
D
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
Residential 3 District
Open Space
411
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 19 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
412
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 20 City of Moreno Valley Proposed Zoning
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 5b
HR
R5
R5
fCl)
a::
w RA2 > I
:J
R3

BAY AVE
R3
R5
RS
SP 207
Rl-7200
Zoning - Large Lot Residential
R3
RA2
R3
R3
RS IO
R5 RSIO
~o
SP 193 GC
491) Commercial Residential Agriculture 2 DU/AC
- lndusttial/Bus.incss Park Rcsidcmlal 2 DU/AC
- Public Facilities Suburban Residential
- Offi<e - Multi-l,imily
- Planned Development - Open Space/Park
" " WL:C
SP-LD
R3
~ 2 RA2
R3 R3 R3
R3 R3
0 R3 R3
R3 R3
R3 fR3 J [R3_ ]
R3 It
I RAfl : 2 ]
R5 ~O O~ I R~O J
p
I
SP 193 NO
413
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 21 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
414
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 22 City of Moreno Valley Conceptual Site Plan
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 6
Ar•o
HAD. W
....
iM>-01V""
.,. 0
C
.A 11822
55/84
:r wide PCC
lnl..-~.J.~8- ch,
PM 1753'
PMS 96/5
1:566
O°M'LR: ZABI TSAI, T M..

Lot C l>PN 479-
)'------- 156 E
PARCEL
\ ,J?M 1753E
> PMB,,96,/~7-
J ~ OW'iER: CUZAB TSAI. CT Ai.. APN 478-090-
415
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 23 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
416
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 24 City of Moreno Valley Wall and Fence Plan
Wall Plan Key
5’ High Tan Vinyl Fence
5’ High Masonry Block Walls

5’ High Tan Vinyl Gate
Powder Coated Wrought Fencing with Iron Gate
Combo Retaining/ block wall
Water Quality (WQMP) Basin Walls
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 7
ir I
I] □ 1:1
I
i
I
417
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 25 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
418
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 26 City of Moreno Valley Offsite Improvements
Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 8
419
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 27 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
420
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 28 City of Moreno Valley Conceptual Landscape Plan
Cactus & Bradshaw Collection Project (TTM 37858) Figure 9 • Area
~in
RCEL 1
I 11822
55/8
OWNER; EUZ1'8E TSAI, ET AL APN 4 78-090--0
421
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 29 City of Moreno Valley This page intentionally left blank.
422
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 30 City of Moreno Valley

14. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The City of Moreno Valley initiated AB 52 consultation on August 22, 2024 for a 30-day period. It also initiated Tribal Consultation on October 24, 2024 under SB18 for a period of 90 days. The City sent notices regarding the Project to the following California Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Agustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Reservation
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) • Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Cahuilla Indians, Rincon Band of Cahuilla Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested consultation regarding the proposed Project, under Assembly Bill (AB52). The City received correspondence from the Pala Band of Mission Indians on behalf of Tribal Chairman, Robert Smith, declining AB52 consultation, stating that it determined that the project as described was not within the boundaries of the Pala Indian Reservation. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, also consulted under Senate Bill 18 (SB18).

The consulting tribes consider the area sensitive for archaeological and cultural resources as several sites are located nearby. Although no information for site-specific tribal cultural resources was provided (and there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Project site), the consulting tribes requested inclusion of mitigation due to the potential of the Project to unearth previously undocumented tribal archaeological and cultural resources during construction. These mitigation measures are incorporated in this Initial Study.

City staff completed formal tribal consultation under AB52 and SB18 on September 10, 2025. Any further input from the tribes will be through the 30-day public review period for CEQA. 423
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 31 City of Moreno Valley

15. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None applicable.

16. Other Technical Studies Referenced in this Initial Study (Provided as Appendices):

A. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study B. Biological Technical Report
C. Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys and MSHCP Consistency
D. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview E. Preliminary Soil Investigation
F. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G. Preliminary Hydrology Report
H. Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan I. Noise Impact Analysis
J. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis

17. Acronyms:

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMD California Integrated Waste Management District
CMP Congestion Management Plan
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GIS Geographic Information System
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GP General Plan
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HOA Homeowners Association
IS Initial Study
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
MARB March Air Reserve Base
MARB/IPA March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MVFP Moreno Valley Fire Department
MVPD Moreno Valley Police Department
MVUSD Moreno Valley Unified School District
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
424
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 32 City of Moreno Valley OEM Office of Emergency Services
OPR Office of Planning & Research, State
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PPP Plans, Programs, or Policies
PW Public Works
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
QSP Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
RCEH Riverside County Environmental Health
RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RCWMD Riverside County Waste Management District
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SKRHCP Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VVUSD Valley Verde Unified School District
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
425
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 33 City of Moreno Valley ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture & Forestry
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology & Water
Quality ☐ Land Use & Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population & Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities & Service
Systems ☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):

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 proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
City of Moreno Valley
Printed Name For
426
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 34 City of Moreno Valley EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).

A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or another CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 427
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 35 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code §21099 – Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Response:

Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in 2 ways: a development Project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the proposed Project would block scenic vistas include the Project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors.

The Project site is located within a partially developed area of the City and is not within or adjacent to a scenic vista. The site is adjacent to roadways and existing residential land uses. The Moreno Valley General Plan Figure 7-2, Major Scenic Resources identifies the scenic resources within the City that include: Box Springs Mountains, Moreno Peak, Russell Mountains, Reche Mountains, and the Badlands.

The site is located approximately one mile south of the Moreno Peak. However, only partial views of the Moreno Peak are present on the Project site between the existing single-family residences to the north and there is no view protection ordinance within the City. The proposed single-family residences would be 30 feet in height, which is in compliance with City of Moreno Valley of a 35-foot maximum, Additionally, the proposed Project would be the same height or similar to existing single-family residences to the north and south.

Figure 7-2, Major Scenic Resources of the General Plan designates various view corridors throughout the City. The proposed Project is not within or adjacent to a designated view corridor. Thus, redevelopment of the Project site with single-family residences would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista; and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Response:

No Impact. There are no designated State scenic highways in the City. The closest eligible State scenic highway is State Route (SR) 74, which travels east/west and is approximately 11.5 miles to the south of the Project site. The closest officially designated State scenic highway is SR 243 from Interstate 10 (I-10) south of the city of Banning limits (Caltrans 2021), which is located approximately 17 miles east of the Project site. Neither of the scenic highways discussed above are visible from the Project site, therefore, no impacts to State scenic highways would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
c) In non-urbanized 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?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project site is located in a developing portion of Moreno Valley and is adjacent to roadways to the south and west, vacant land to the east, and single-family residences to the north. Nearby parcels are developed with single-family residential uses. The Project site is vacant. The existing character of the site and surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. Thus, for the purposes of this threshold, the analysis considers whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

The Project would develop the Project site to provide 37 new single-family residences, which would be similar to the singlefamily residential uses that are adjacent to the west, north, and south of the Project site. □ □ C><l LJ
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
428
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 36 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Zoning. The Project site is currently zoned as Residential 5 District (R5). The Project includes a zone change to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District to implement the proposed single-family residential uses. MVMC Section

9.03.020 states that the primary purpose of the Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District is to provide for residential development on small single-family lots with amenities not generally found in suburban subdivisions. The district is intended for subdivisions at a maximum allowable density of ten (10) dwelling units per net acre.

The proposed development would also require approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows for a development to establish unique criteria for such things as setbacks, lot width and depth, building separation, and lot size. This is allowed in exchange for a higher level of detail and amenities within the Project than typically required for standard residential development. The Project would be consistent with the standards for approval of a PUD listed in MVMC Section 9.03.060.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the development standards for the Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District listed in Municipal Code Section 9.03.040 with approval of a PUD. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality.

Table AES-1: Project Development Standard Consistency
Standard Municipal Code Requirement Proposed Project
Minimum lot size 4,500 Square Feet (SF) 3,095 SF*
Lot width 45 ft. 43 ft.*
Lot depth 85 ft. 72 ft.*
Maximum density 10 du/acre 7.9 du/acre
Height limit 35 feet 30 feet/2 stories
General Plan. The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Residential: Max. 5 du/ac (R5). The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site to Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10). According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10) General Plan land use designation allows for development of residential uses to a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. The Project’s proposed density of approximately 7.9 du/ac would be consistent with the maximum allowable density of 10 du/ac with the approval of a PUD. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies related to scenic quality, as shown in Table LU-1 in the Land Use section.

Overall, the proposed Project would be consistent with development standards required by the RS10 zoning district with the approval of a CUP for a PUD, the Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10) General Plan land use designation, as well as the Land Use Element goals and policies related to scenic quality. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Furthermore, the Project would increase the visual cohesion between the Project site and the surrounding single-family residential area. The proposed Project would develop a vacant site with single-family residences which would be consistent with the existing zoning and surrounding land uses. The single-family residences would include a traditional two-story home design with either Spanish, French, or Traditional architectural elements. Hence, the proposed Project would not degrade the visual character of the Project site and surrounding area; and impacts would be less than significant. 429
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 37 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Impacts
Project construction could result in temporary glare impacts as a result of construction equipment and materials present at the site. However, construction lighting would be shielded downward to limit the spill of light onto adjacent properties.

Additionally, the construction of the proposed Project would be restricted to the City’s permitted construction hours set forth in the Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.14.040. Construction in Moreno Valley is permitted from 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays and from 8 AM to 4PM on Saturday, unless written approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. As a result, the construction of the proposed Project would have a lessthan-significant impact on light and glare.

Operational Impacts
The Project site is undeveloped and has no existing source of nighttime lighting. However, the Project site is surrounded by sources of nighttime lighting including streetlights along Cactus Avenue, illumination from vehicle headlights, offsite exterior residential related lighting, and interior illumination passing through windows. Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include residents, motorists, and pedestrians.

The proposed Project would include the provision of street lighting and nighttime lighting for security purposes around all of the residences. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a higher intensity development on the Project Site than currently exists, which would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions.

However, all outdoor lighting would be hooded, appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses, and would comply with the MVMC Section 9.16.280 that will highlight building features and add emphasis to important spaces and entryways, while limiting glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties. Furthermore, the proposed project would adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), as outlined in Article IV of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, including the provisions for lighting in Chapter 9.16.280, General Requirements. Because the Project site is within an urban area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations that would be verified by the City’s Building and Safety Division during the permitting process, the lighting increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant.

Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residences would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential on onsite lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.3 – Community Design • Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.8 – Scenic Resources - Figure 6-2 – Major Scenic Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.11 – Aesthetics
- Figure 4.11-1 – Major Scenic Resources

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.110 – Light and Glare of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. • Chapter 9.16 – Design Guidelines
• Section 9.17.030 G – Heritage Trees

4. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System. 2021. Accessed: at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways □ □ [X] □
430
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 38 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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 Dept. 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:
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? Response:

Less than Significant Impact. The State of California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program is responsible for producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. The Project Site is identified by the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder as “Farmland of Local Importance” (CDC, 2020). Farmland of Local Importance is farmland important to the local agricultural economy as determined by the County Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. The Project Site is vacant and does not contain any existing farmland. Per Section 21060.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance is not considered Farmland. No surrounding areas are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Per Section 21060.1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance is not considered Prime, Unique, or of Statewide Importance. Because there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance at the Project site, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Response:

No Impact. The Project Site has an existing zoning designation of Residential 5 District (R5). The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, based on the California Department of Conservation Williamson Act Enrollment Finder (DOC, 2022). Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to conflict with an existing agricultural zoning or 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))?
Response:

No Impact. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project Ste. The Project Site has a zoning designation for residential and is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to conflict with an existing forest land or timberland zoning. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Response:

No Impact. No forest land exists on the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and impacts would not occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Response:

No Impact. As described in the responses above, the Project area does not include farmland or forest land; thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not 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. Impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~ -
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
431
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 39 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measure
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.7 – Agricultural Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.8 – Agricultural Resources
- Figure 4.8-1 – Important Farmlands

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder. 2022. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ (Accessed February 19, 2024).

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and SCAG uses regional growth projections to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources.

As described in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), for purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed Project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed Project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a Project’s density is within the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

The proposed Project is a residential development project on a currently vacant site. The site is located within a residential area of Moreno Valley. The proposed Project would develop 37 single-family residences on the site. As further described in Section 14, Population and Housing, would result in the addition of approximately 143 new residents, which would represent a population increase of approximately 0.07 percent and a 0.06 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth on a site that has been previously developed would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP.

In addition, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds. As described in the analysis below, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed Project would be less than significant.
b) 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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAB is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and State and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
□ □ [g] □
□ □ [g] □
432
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 40 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Source: RK Engineering, 2025 (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition and removal of the existing onsite improvements and recycling debris; (2) grading and excavation; (3) construction workers traveling to and from Project site; (4) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the Project site; (5) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (6) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM-10, and PM-2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to: applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling for the Project. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 that governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents, was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling for the Project. As shown in Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, emissions from construction activities would be less than significant.

Table AQ-2: Construction Emissions Summary
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions1
(pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 3.73 36.05 34.03 0.05 9.49 5.47
Grading 2.10 28.64 22.20 0.09 6.25 2.96
Building Construction 1.27 11.44 14.11 0.02 0.71 0.51
Paving 1.00 6.61 10.39 0.01 0.55 0.32
Architectural Coating 26.14 0.90 1.30 0.00 0.06 0.03
Maximum Daily
Emissions

26.14 36.05 34.03 0.09 9.49 5.47
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds
75 100 550 150 150 55
Emissions Exceed
Thresholds?
No No No No No No
1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite Project emissions Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) 433
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 41 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Operation
Operation of the 37 single-family residences would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the operational emissions from the Project.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and operational impacts would be less than significant.

Table AQ-3: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions1
(pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 1.24 1.90 10.15 0.02 2.21 0.57
Area Sources 1.89 0.02 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Sources 0.02 0.33 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total 3.12 1.25 12.39 0.02 2.24 0.60
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds
55 55 550 150 150 55
Emissions Exceed
Thresholds?
No No No No No No
1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite Project emissions Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD, 2008) recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD, 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM-2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site is located within SRA 24, Perris Valley. The LSTs for this SRA were applied to the Project.

Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the Project site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the closest existing residential structure is located north of the Project site boundary approximately 10-feet from the property line. Therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the LST assessment was set at 25 meters, the shortest distance contained in the SCAQMD LST emission look-up tables (RK Engineering, 2025).

Constaruction
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5 acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily. Project construction would disturb a maximum area of 3.5 acres during the site preparation phase. Therefore, the localized significance thresholds for 3.5 acres were used (RK Engineering, 2025).

Table AQ-4 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. As shown, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in a localized air quality impact. □ □ [g] □
434
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 42 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table AQ-4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction Construction Activity Maximum Daily Localized Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Onsite Emissions 35.95 32.93 9.27 5.41
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds2
216.8 1,221.4 9.8 6.1
Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
1 Maximum daily emission during winter or summer; includes onsite Project emissions only Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) As described in Response 4.3(b), the proposed Project would not significantly increase long-term emissions within the Project area. Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices (Rules 402 and 403, as included as PPP AQ-1 and PPP AQ-2). Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source.

Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
For operational LSTs, onsite passenger car and truck travel emissions were modeled. The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State Ambient Air Quality Standards. As shown on Table AQ-5, operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, localized air quality impacts from operational activities would be less than significant.

Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Summary of Operations Operational Activity Maximum Daily Localized Emissions (pounds/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Onsite Emissions 0.40 2.75 0.14 0.06
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold
216.8 1,221.4 2.9 1.6
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Response:

No Impact. The proposed Project would not emit other emissions, such as those generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is identified by SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.

The proposed Project would implement residential development within the Project area that does not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by non- □ □ □ ~
435
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 43 City of Moreno Valley residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisance odors.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the shortterm construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with other emissions, such as odors, would not adversely affect a substantial number of people and there would be no impact.

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

Mitigation Measure
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 5 – Circulation Element
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.6 – Air Quality

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.3 – Air Quality
- Figure 4.3-1 – South Coast Air Basin
• Appendix C – Air Quality Analysis, P&D Consultants, July 2003

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.050 – Air Quality of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.150 – Odors of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.170 – Vibration of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 12.50.040 – Limitations on Engine Idling

5. TTM 37858 Single Family Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study. RK Engineering. April 22, 2025 (Appendix A).

6. South Coast Air Quality Management District Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008). Accessed: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (Accessed May 26, 2021). 436
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 44 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is vacant and undeveloped and has been previously disturbed. The Project’s offsite improvement area contains Bradshaw Circle, a developed roadway. A Biological Habitat Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project, which included a literature search to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. General plant and wildlife surveys were also conducted to identify any biological resources on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP (Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan) Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan.

The Habitat Assessment identified 12 special-status plant species that have the potential to occur within the Project vicinity; however, all listed plant species were determined to have no potential and be absent from the Project site (CADRE Environmental, 2024).

The Habitat Assessment identified 55 special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the Project vicinity. Five MSHCP species were determined to have moderate to low potential of occurring onsite including the sharpshinned hawk, grasshopper sparrow, California horned lark, northern harrier, and the white-tailed kite. The MSHCP has determined that these sensitive species with potential to occur onsite have been adequately covered through the payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee, included herein as PPP BIO-1.

It was determined that potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) is present onsite. The burrowing owl is a State species of special concern and MSHCP Group 3 species that is commonly found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, as well as desert habitats with low-growing vegetation. The burrowing owl resides in burrows primarily created, then abandoned, by species such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Therefore, protocol burrowing owl surveys were conducted to determine the presence and use of the site by burrowing owls.

Burrowing owl habitat assessment surveys and focused surveys were conducted in 2024 according to the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. The surveys were completed in three steps; Habitat Assessment (Step 1), Focused Burrow Surveys (Step 2A), and Focused Owl Surveys (Step 2B).

In Step 1, habitat within the Project area was assessed for burrowing owl presence, use, and potential use. Areas with potential burrowing owl habitat, including pasture and debris piles were surveyed by CADRE Environmental for potential burrows. Biologists walked areas of potential habitat while searching for the presence of burrowing owls, potential and active burrows, and owl sign, such as white-wash, feathers, pellets, and prey items. Step 1 of the survey identified suitable burrowing owl habitat onsite due to the presence of low-growing vegetation.

In Step 2A, focused burrow surveys were conducted, which included surveys of natural burrows or suitable debris piles.

Transect surveys for burrows, including owl signs, were conducted by walking or being escorted through suitable habitat over the entire survey area. The locations of all potential owl burrows, observed owl sign, and observed burrowing owls were recorded and mapped.

In Step 2B, focused burrowing owl surveys consisted of four site visits covering all Project areas and adjacent areas.

Surveys were conducted in the morning 1 hour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise. Upon arrival at the survey area and prior to initiating the walking surveys, surveyors used binoculars and/or spotting scopes to scan all suitable habitats, as well as the location of mapped burrows, owl sign, and owls, including perch locations to ascertain owl presence. A survey for owls and owl sign was then conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the entire Project site and within the adjacent 150-meter (500-foot) buffer zone. Results of the Step 2A surveys found no owl burrows on the proposed Project Site or in adjacent areas. In addition, Step 2B found no burrowing owls on the proposed Project Site or adjacent to the Project Site (CADRE Environmental, 2024). Although no impacts to this species are anticipated as a result of construction activities, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require a preconstruction burrowing owl survey □ ~ □ □
437
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 45 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
to be conducted at least 30-days immediately prior to the start of ground disturbance activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, impacts related to burrowing owls would be less than significant.

The Habitat Assessment performed by CADRE Environmental identified suitable habitat and substrate for raptors that are protected under the MSHCP, as well as migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code (CADRE Environmental, 2024). Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require a qualified biologist to survey the project impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests no more than 3 days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require pre-construction nesting bird surveys, as well as recommendations for vegetation removal outside of the nesting bird season. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts related to protected bird species would also be reduced to a less than significant level.

The Habitat Assessment further describes that the special-status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur on the Project site are covered by compliance with the MSHCP, which requires payment of fees, included as PPP BIO-1.

Thus, through adherence to the recommendations provided in the Habitat Assessment, payment of the MSHCP mitigation fees (included as PPP BIO-1), and implementation of pre-construction nesting bird surveys, the Project would be fully consistent with the MSCHP, CDFW, and USFWS, and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2.
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?
Response:

No Impact. The Project Site consists of vacant land that has been heavily disturbed by grading. The assessment done by CADRE Environmental identified there are no State or federal streambed resources on the Project Site. In addition, MSHCP Section 6.12 riverine resources are not located on the Project Site, and as such the Project does not require permits from Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Project does not contain any vernal pools, wetland habitats, creeks, or rivers (CADRE Environmental, 2024). Thus, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Response:

No Impact. As described in the response above, the Project Site does not contain any drainages, creeks, rivers, or other wetland areas (CADRE Environmental, 2024). The Project site does not contain any jurisdictional areas that would be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the proposed Project does not involve any hydrological interruption on any existing water resources. Thus, impacts to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is vacant and undeveloped but is adjacent to roadways, disturbed, and developed land uses. Due to the existing conditions of the Project site and the surrounding land uses, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors (CADRE Environmental, 2024). There are no native wildlife nursery sites. However, as described previously, the site includes areas that are suitable for nesting birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the CDFW code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require pre-construction nesting bird surveys. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts to native wildlife nursery sites would not occur and impacts would be less than significant. □ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
438
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 46 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Response:

No Impact. There are no local biological related policies or ordinances, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance that is applicable to the proposed Project. The Project Site is adjacent to existing non-native ornamental trees that are on the right-of-way on Cactus Avenue, adjacent to the single-family residential areas to the north, and are not subject to any ordinances. The Project Site contains non-protected native shrubs and herbs as well as non-native grasses and shrubs and one nonnative palm tree. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site occurs within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As described previously, the Project site is located within the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan of the MSHCP, but is not located within a Criteria Area Cell, Core, or Linkage. Furthermore, a habitat survey and surveys for burrowing owl have been conducted as outlined in response 4(a) and further preconstruction surveys and payment of fees would be conducted prior to construction as required by Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-2. Additionally, the Project is required to pay applicable MSHCP fees prior to grading permit approval as outlined in PPP BIO-1 and PPP BIO-2. With implementation of PPP BIO-1, PPP BIO-2, MM BIO-1, and MM BIO-2, development of the Project site would not conflict with local, regional, or State resource preservation and/or conservation policies. Therefore, with the inclusion of MM BIO-1 and BIO2 impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP BIO-1: MSHCP Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay relevant City of Moreno Valley mitigation fees to the City.

PPP BIO-2: SKR Fee Area. The Project Site falls within the SKR Fee Area outlined in the Riverside County SKR HCP.

The project applicant shall pay the fees pursuant to County Ordinance 663.10 for the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area as established and implemented by the County of Riverside.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Pursuant to the MSHCP Objective 6, for burrowing owl, a preconstruction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted at least 30 days prior to the initiation of construction activity to verify the presence/absence of the owl on the Project site. Within thirty days of the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the Project site for the presence of any active owl burrows. Any active burrow found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active burrows are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley.

If nesting activity is present at an active burrow, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Nesting activity for burrowing owl in the region normally occurs between March and August. To protect the active burrow, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until the burrow is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500-foot buffer around any active burrow, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist, and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any active burrow, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the active burrow shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active burrow is observed during the nonnesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will either actively or passively relocate the burrowing owl based on direction from the WRC RCA. The biologist shall then remove the burrow so the burrowing owl cannot return to the burrow. Therefore, based on the described construction activities and implementation of mitigation measures as identified, impacts to BUOW would not be significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Preconstruction Raptor and Bird Surveys. Three days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and MBTA nesting cycle (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall survey all areas within 500 feet of the Project impact area for the presence of any active raptor or bird nests (common or special status). Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to □ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
439
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 47 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the CDFW. If nesting activity is present at any raptor or bird nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities are required until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500-foot buffer around any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist, and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active nest is observed during the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor or bird is away from the nest, the biologist will flush any raptor to open space areas. A qualified biologist, or construction personnel under the direction of the qualified biologist, shall then remove the nest site so raptors and birds cannot return to a nest.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.1 – Biological Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.9 – Biological Resources
- Figure 4.9-1 – Planning Area Biological Geographic Sections - Figure 4.9-2 – Planning Area Vegetation Community
- Figure 4.9-3 – Project Site Location within the MSHCP Area - Figure 4.9-4 – Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan
• Appendix E – Biological Resources Study, Appendix E

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.17.030 G – Heritage Trees

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 – Threatened and Endangered Species

5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), http://www.wrc-rca.org/aboutrca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/

6. Habitat Assessment. March 2024. Prepared by CADRE Environmental (Appendix B).

7. Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl. March 18, 2024. Prepared by CADRE Environmental (Appendix C).

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria:
1) Listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) Identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) Determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency.

As described previously, the Project site is currently vacant. Historic aerial photographs and maps of the Project site showed no development in the general vicinity of the Project area until after 1976. All improvements, therefore, are less than 45 years of age and considered modern and of no historical consequence (McKenna, 2020). Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts would be less than significant.
□ □ ~ □
440
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 48 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview prepared for the Project Site included an archaeological records search that was completed at the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center (UCR-EIC). All pertinent data was researched, including previous studies for a one-mile radius surrounding the Project area and the identification of recorded resources within one mile. In addition, the research included review of the current listings (federal, State, and local) for evaluated resources and reviewed historic maps. The records search indicated that the nearest recorded resources are located more than one-half mile from the Project site. There are no known significant cultural resources within the Project area and any future development will not adversely impact any significant resources (McKenna, 2020).

As required for compliance with CEQA guidelines and the data requirements of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), an intensive field survey was conducted to adequately identify, describe, report, and, if possible, evaluate any cultural resources identified within the Project area boundaries. This intensive field survey was conducted on March 7, 2020. No evidence of any prehistoric archaeological sites, prehistoric isolates, historic archaeological sites and/or historic isolates was found within the Project area boundaries. In addition, no historic landscape or suggestion of ethic resources or associations were found. Overall, the property was clear of any evidence of surface cultural resources and the potential for buried resources was determined to be extremely low to nonexistent (McKenna, 2020). Furthermore, the offsite improvement area is currently developed with Bradshaw Circle.

Based on the negative findings presented above, there are no known cultural resources, significant or not, within or adjacent to the Project area. In addition, as discussed previously, based on the results of the cultural resources search and survey, evidence of surface cultural resources and the potential for buried resources was determined to be extremely low to nonexistent (McKenna, 2020). Nevertheless, due to archaeological sensitivity in the City and Project vicinity, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-9 would be implemented by the Project and require archaeological monitoring, a Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP), measures for inadvertent finds, and Archaeology Reports. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-9, impacts to archaeological and cultural resources would be less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formally dedicated cemeteries?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site has not been previously used as a cemetery. Thus, human remains are not anticipated to be uncovered during Project construction. In addition, procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, which has been included as Mitigation Measure CR-7. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Thus, with compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-7, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.
□ ~ □ □
I □ I ~ □ □
441
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 49 City of Moreno Valley Mitigation Measures:

CR 1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities at Bradshaw Collection (Tentative Tract Map 37858).

The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Pechanga Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, including the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in CR-3. The Project archeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth-moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed.

CR 2 Native American Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall secure agreements with the Pechanga Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and/or Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians for tribal monitoring. The Developer is also required to provide a minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to the tribes of all ground-disturbing activities. The Native American Tribal Representatives shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth-moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological and cultural resources are unearthed. The Native American Monitor(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the Project Archaeologist, the City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct the Tribal Perspective of the mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

CR 3 Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP). The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project description and location;
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the Project; d. The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details; e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s), and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation; f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items; g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project.

CR 4 Cultural Resource Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes.

Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. On-site reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR 1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in CR 3. The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

CR 5 The City shall verify that the following note is included on the Grading Plan:
“If any suspected archaeological and cultural resources are discovered during ground–disturbing activities and the Project Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the significance of the find."

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
442
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 50 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CR 6 Inadvertent Finds. If potential historic or cultural resources are uncovered during excavation or construction activities at Bradshaw Collection (Tentative Tract Map 37858) that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Project approval, all ground-disturbing activities in the affected area within 100 feet of the uncovered resource must cease immediately and a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives, and all site monitors per the Mitigation Measures, shall be consulted by the City to evaluate the find, and as appropriate recommend alternative measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative effects on the historic, or prehistoric resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologists and Tribal Monitors, if needed. Determinations and recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration and implemented as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in CR 2 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

CR 7 Human Remains. If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98). (GP Objective 23.3, CEQA). No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).

CR 8 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that, unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

CR 9 Archaeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archaeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at the San Diego State University (SDSU), and one (1) copy shall be submitted to each of the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.2 – Cultural and Historical Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.10 – Cultural Resources
• Figure 4.10-1 – Locations of Listed Historic Resource Inventory Structures

3. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview for Tentative Tract Map No. 37858, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. March 18, 2020. Prepared by McKenna et al. (Appendix D). 443
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 51 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the surrounding area. Additionally, Moreno Valley Utility currently provides electricity services to the surrounding area. The proposed Project would install onsite electrical and natural gas infrastructure that would connect to the existing offsite lines.

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project sites, construction worker travel to and from the Project sites, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Construction activities related to the proposed building and the associated infrastructure would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than other development projects in southern California. In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur is limited to a 12-month period, and the demand for construction-related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame.

Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction permitting process. In addition, compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. The energy modeling shows that Project construction electricity usage over the 12-month construction period is estimated to use 28,877.75 gallons of diesel fuel, as shown in Table E-1.

Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Consumption Phase Phase
Duration
Equipment Amount Horsepower Load
Factor
Horsepower
Hours
Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(gal)
Site Preparation 5 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 367 0.40 17,616 952.2 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
4 84 0.37 4,972.8 268.8
Grading 8 Graders 1 148 0.41 3,883.5 209.9
Excavators 1 36 0.38 875.5 47.3
Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
3 82 0.37 5,967.4 322.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 367 0.40 9,395.2 507.8
Building
Construction
230 Cranes 1 367 0.29 171,352.3 9,262.3
Forklifts 3 82 0.20 90,528 4,893.4
Generator Sets 1 14 0.74 19,062.4 1,030.4
Welders 1 46 0.45 38,088 2,058.8
Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
3 84 0.37 150,116.4 8,114.4
Paving 18 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
1 84 0.37 4,475.5 241.9
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
2 10 0.56 1,209.6 65.4
Pavers 1 81 0.42 4,898.9 264.8
Paving Equipment 2 89 0.36 6,920.6 374.1
Rollers 2 36 0.38 2,954.9 159.7
Architectural
Coating
18 Air Compressors 1 37 0.48 1,918.1 103.7
Total Diesel Fuel Consumption 28,877.57
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) □ □ ~ □
444
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 52 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Table E-2 shows that construction workers would use approximately 3,166.47 gallons of fuel to travel to and from the Project site, and haul trucks and vendor trucks would use approximately 4,261.63 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table E-2: Estimated Construction Vehicle Trip Related Fuel Consumption Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Haul Trucks 3,128.35 1.76
Vendor Trucks 1,130.39 219.81
Worker Vehicles 2.89 2,944.90
Construction Vehicles Total 4,261.63 3,166.47
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) Overall, construction activities would comply with all existing regulations, and would therefore not be expected to use fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the residences where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to operate the Project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption.

The proposed Project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energyefficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. As detailed in Table E-3, operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 48,035. gallons of gasoline, 2,939.11 gallons of diesel fuel, approximately 230,684.62 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity, and approximately 1,315.88 million British thermal units (MBTU) of natural gas. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

Table E-3: Estimated Annual Operational Energy Consumption Operational Source (value per year)
Energy Source Annual VMT Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Gallons of
Diesel Fuel
Transportation – Project 1,136,007 48,035.94 2,939.11
Thousands Kilowatt-Hours
Electricity – Project 230,684.62
Million British Thermal Units
Natural Gas – Project 1,315.88
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) 445
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 53 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be required to meet the CALGreen energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met.

In addition, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy.

Further, the Project would be consistent with policies set forth in the City’s General Plan related to renewable energy, as outlined in Tables E-4 and E-5. As discussed, the Project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with Title 24. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table E-4: 2006 General Plan Consistency
Policy Consistency
Goal 2.5: Maintenance of systems for water supply and
distribution; wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal; solid waste collection and disposal; and energy distribution which are capable of meeting the present and future needs of all residential, commercial, and industrial customers within the City of Moreno Valley.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 19, Utilities and
Service Systems, the supply of water listed in Table
WQ-1 would be sufficient during both normal years
and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and
2045 to meet all of the City’s estimated needs,
including the proposed Project
Policy 2.2.15: Encourage the use of innovative and cost effective building materials, site design practices and energy and water conservation measures to conserve
resources and reduce the cost of residential development.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be required
to comply with Title 24 Building Standards. Typical
Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energyefficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials;
energy- efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems;
and incorporation of skylights, etc.

Objective 6.7: Reduce mobile and stationary source air
pollutant emissions.

Policy 6.7.6: Require building construction to comply with the energy conservation requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

Objective 7.5: Encourage efficient use of energy
resources.

7.5.1: Encourage building, site design, and landscaping techniques that provide passive heating and cooling to
reduce energy demand.

Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with
Title 24 Building Standards. Typical Title 24
measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient
heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energyefficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the
Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage
periods would be minimized, and impacts on
statewide and regional energy needs would be
reduced

7.5.2: Encourage energy efficient modes of transportation and fixed facilities, including transit, bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian transportation. Emphasize fuel efficiency in the acquisition and use of City-owned vehicles.

Consistent. The proposed Project includes
pedestrian paths to provide for non-vehicular onsite
circulation and for connection to existing sidewalks
and bike lanes adjacent to the proposed Project.

7.5.5 Encourage the use of solar power and other
renewable energy systems.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be
consistent with Title 24 Building Standards and would
include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to offset the
energy demand.
□ □ [:g] □
446
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 54 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table E-5: 2024 General Plan Consistency
Policy Consistency
Goal OSRC-3: Use energy and water wisely and
promote reduced consumption.

Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with
Title 24 Building Standards. Typical Title 24 measures
include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC);
solar-reflective roofing materials; energy-efficient
indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and incorporation
of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24
standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods
would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and
regional energy needs would be reduced
OSRC 3.1: Promote energy conservation throughout
the community and encourage the use of renewable
energy systems and technologies to supplement or
replace traditional building energy systems.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to offset the energy
demand and would be in compliance with the Title 24
California Building Standards.

OSRC 3.5: Promote the retention and reuse of
rainwater onsite and promote the use of rain barrels or other rainwater reuse systems throughout the community.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include a
series of catch basins which would collect all
stormwater onsite.

OSRC 3.6: Encourage new development to
incorporate as many water-wise practices as feasible in their design and construction.

Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with
Title 24 Building Standards which require the inclusion of efficient water features.

OSRC 3.8: Conserve water through the planting and
maintenance of trees, which will provide for the capture of precipitation and runoff to recharge groundwater, in
addition to providing shading for other landscaping to
reduce irrigation requirements. Ensure that any
‘community greening’ projects utilize water-efficient
landscape
Consistent. As detailed in Section 19, Utilities and
Service Systems, the supply of water listed in Table
WQ-1 would be sufficient during both normal years
and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and
2045 to meet all of the City’s estimated needs,
including the proposed Project.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GHG-1: CALGreen Compliance, provided in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.6 – Energy Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. TTM 37858 Single Family Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study. RK Engineering. April 22, 2025 (Appendix A).

5. City of Moreno Valley Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy. Accessed at:
http://www.moval.org/pdf/efficiency-climate112012nr.pdf (Accessed May 27, 2021). 447
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 55 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant 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?
Response:

No Impact. The Project Site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County of Riverside Fault zone. As described by the Preliminary Soil Investigation prepared for the proposed Project, the nearest known active fault zone is the San Jacinto fault zone located approximately 2.78 miles from the Project site (Soil Exploration Company Inc., 2020). Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and impacts would not occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. As mentioned previously, the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 2.78 miles from the site (Soil Exploration Company Inc., 2020). Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Chapter 8.20. In addition, PPP GEO-1 has been included to provide provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the ground motion. PPP GEO-1 requires that the Project must comply with the California Building Code and include geologist or civil engineer specifications in its grading plans to address seismic hazards as a condition of approval. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Because the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.

Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

According to the Preliminary Soil Investigation for the proposed Project, the site is located within an area of moderate liquefaction potential. Liquefaction is a process in which strong ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength and behave as a fluid. The potential for and magnitude of lateral spreading is dependent upon many conditions, including the presence of a relatively thick, continuous, potentially liquefiable sand layer and high slopes. Subsurface information obtained from the Preliminary Soil Investigation indicates that after compaction onsite soils, settlement of saturated sands is 0 inches and unsaturated sands is 1.14 inches. Based on currently available procedures, the site does not appear to be susceptible to lateral spread during a moderate seismic event. In addition, the Preliminary Soil Investigation determined that groundwater, seepage or wet soils were not encountered in exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 50 feet (Soil Exploration Company Inc., 2020). □ □ □ [:8J
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
448
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 56 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
In addition, as described previously, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 8.20 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which implements specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls and site demolition. Compliance with the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, would require specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects of seismic ground movement, including liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s municipal code for structural safety (included as PPP GEO-1) would reduce hazards from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level. iv) Landslides?
Response:

No Impact. Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.

As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is flat and does not contain any hills or any other areas that could be subject to landslides. In addition, the local vicinity is flat and does not contain any hills. Therefore, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides and no impact would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading and excavation activities that would be required for the proposed Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.

The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.21.170 implements all applicable requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), and all projects in the City are required to conform to the permit requirements. This includes installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the proposed Project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities such as, potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, and identification of erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that are required to be prepared to implement the Project (included as PPP WQ-1), construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the Project substantial areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. In addition, as described in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the Project have been designed to slow, filter, and slowly discharge stormwater into the offsite drainage system, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during Project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
□ □ □ I l6J
□ □ l6J □
449
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 57 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES: Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project site is flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any slope or hillside area. The Project would not create slopes. Thus, onsite or offsite landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.

Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction, is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils, and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage or stream channel. According to the Preliminary Soil Investigation, subsurface information indicates that high slopes are not anticipated. In addition, based on currently available procedures, the site does not appear to be susceptible to (lateral spread) ground surface disruption during a moderate seismic event (Soil Exploration Company Inc, 2020). Thus, the soils are not susceptible to lateral spreading and impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Differential settlement or subsidence could occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength foundation materials (including imported fill) or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials (e.g., a boundary between native material and fill). Although differential settlement generally occurs slowly enough that its effects are not dangerous to inhabitants, it can cause building damage over time. Seismic settlement in dry soils generally occurs in loose sands and silty sands, with cohesive soils being less prone to significant settlement.

The Preliminary Soil Investigation determined that overexcavation and recompaction of loose surficial soils are anticipated to provide adequate and uniform support for the proposed structures (Soil Exploration Company Inc, 2020). Project design and implementation would comply with the recommendations of the required Preliminary Soil Investigation prepared for the Project site, which would ensure impacts related to settlement and subsidence would be less than significant.

In summary, with implementation of the recommendations in the Project’s Preliminary Soil Investigation, potentially significant impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units that would become unstable as a result of the Project, resulting in onsite or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, would be reduced to a less than significant level, and no mitigation would be required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Preliminary Soil Investigation performed an evaluation of the potential for expansive soils at the site, which determined that the expansion potential of onsite near surface silty sands is expected to be very low (El<20) (Soil Exploration Company Inc, 2020). However, as described previously, compliance with the CBC, included as PPP GEO-1, would require specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects of related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Response:

No Impact. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils. Furthermore, the proposed Project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
450
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 58 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase 1 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment prepared for the Project included a locality search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) to identify any previously identified paleontological resources near the Project site.

The Phase 1 Cultural and Paleontological Overview determined that the Project area consists of surficial deposits of younger Quaternary deposits overlying older Quaternary deposits. The younger deposits are not conducive to yielding paleontological specimens. However, the deeper, older alluvial deposits may, in fact, yield such resources. The Project area should be considered sensitive for buried paleontological resources (McKenna, 2020).

Therefore, based on the results of the Phase I Paleontological Resources Assessment, the Project area is considered to have high sensitivity for the potential to impact paleontological resources during construction activities at or below 5 feet in undisturbed sedimentary deposits. McKenna recommends preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) prior to construction excavation. Thus, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 has been included to require preparation of a PRMP and that a professional paleontologist be hired to oversee monitoring. With implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, provided in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan, provided in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the City shall be retained to provide spot-check monitoring services for the Project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. The PRIMP shall require paleontological spot-check monitoring of excavation that exceeds depths of 5 feet. The PRIMP shall state that the Project paleontologist shall re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after 50 percent or greater of the excavations deeper than 5 feet have been completed.

In the event that paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.

Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by Project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. □ ~ □ □
451
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 59 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.5 – Geologic Hazards - Figure 5-3 – Geologic Faults & Liquefaction
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.4 -- Soils

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
- Figure 4.6-1 – Geology
- Figure 4.6-2 – Seismic Hazards

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.21 – Grading Regulations

5. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit-plan.pdf • Chapter 4 – Earthquake
- Figure 3-1 – Right-Lateral Strike -Slip Fault
- Figure 3-1.1 – Moreno Valley Geologic Faults and Liquefaction 2016 - Figure 3-1.2 – Moreno Valley Area Ground Shaking Map
• Chapter 8 – Landslide
- Figure 7-1 – Moreno Valley Slope Analysis 2016

6. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2024, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.moval.org/departments/fire/pdf/MV-EOP2024.pdf • Threat Assessment 1 –Earthquakes
- Figure 10 – California Earthquake Faults
- Figure 13 – City Liquefaction Map

7. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview for Tentative Tract Map No. 37858, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. March 18, 2020. Prepared by McKenna et al. (Appendix D).

8. Preliminary Soil Investigation, Infiltration Test and Liquefaction Evaluation Report, Proposed Residential Development Site (41 Lots), Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle (APN 478-090-018, -024 and -025), City of Moreno Valley, California. January 21, 2020. Prepared by Soil Exploration Company, Inc. (Appendix E). 452
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 60 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

GHG Thresholds
The City of Moreno Valley has not adopted a numerical significance threshold to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, it does have draft thresholds that provides a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which includes the following:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. • Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions. • Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and Commercial land use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e per year
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,820 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. Therefore, for purposes of examining potential GHG impacts from implementation of the proposed Project, and to provide a conservative analysis of potential impacts, the Tier 3 screening level for all land use projects of 3,000 MTCO2e was selected as the significance threshold (Vince Mirabella, 2020).

In addition, SCAQMD methodology for project’s construction are to average them over 30-years and then add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would exceed the screening values listed above (Vince Mirabella, 2020).

Climate Action Plan
The City of Moreno Valley adopted an Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy document in 2012. The Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy is a policy document which identifies ways that the City can reduce energy and water consumption and GHG emissions as an organization (its employees and the operation of its facilities) and outlines the actions that the City can encourage and community members can employ to reduce their own energy and water consumption and GHG emissions. The Project involves the construction and operation of 37 single-family residences that would fall under the scope of these policies.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities produce GHG emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles onsite, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew.

In addition, operation of the proposed residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the residences would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source.

The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project are shown in Table GHG-1. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, the Project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the Project’s total annual GHG emissions.
□ □ ~ □
453
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 61 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A) As shown on Table GHG-1, the combined construction and operation of the Project would result in a total increase in GHG emissions of 519.99 MTCO2e per year, which would not exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.

Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

Activity Annual GHG
Emissions (MTCO2e)
Project Operational Emissions
Area
Energy
Mobile
Waste
Water
Refrigerant

0.64 114.91
377.25

10.62 4.65

0.09 Project Construction Emissions 11.83
Project Construction and
Operation
519.99
Significance Threshold 3,000
Project Exceeds Threshold? No
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse
gases?
Response:

No Impact. The proposed Project would redevelop the site with single-family residences that would comply with State programs that are designed to be energy efficient. The proposed Project would comply with all mandatory measures under the California Title 24, California Energy Code, and the CALGreen Code, which would provide efficient energy and water consumption. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of the energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project includes photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to offset the energy demand. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GHG-1: CALGreen Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the CALGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code to ensure efficient use of energy. CALGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into the building plans as a condition of building permit approval.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, prepared by the California Air Resources Board, November 2017, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, (Accessed May 27, 2021)

5. TTM 37858 Single Family Residential Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study. RK Engineering. April 22, 2025 (Appendix A).

6. City of Moreno Valley Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy. Accessed at:
http://www.moval.org/pdf/efficiency-climate112012nr.pdf (Accessed May 27, 2021) □ □ □ ~
454
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 62 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition, hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and State regulations that are implemented by the City during building permitting for construction activities. Construction would also include temporary dewatering during excavation for utility installations if the excavation is deep enough to encounter groundwater.

If such excavations are in the vicinity of the impacted groundwater in the northeast portion of the site, the water would either be contained and transported to a licensed offsite treatment facility or treated on site before discharge under a county permit to the sanitary sewer. As a result, construction of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves operation of 37 new single-family residences. Residential uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment because residents are not anticipated to use, store, dispose, or transport large volumes of hazardous materials. Hazardous substances associated with residential uses are typically limited in both amount and use. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides) typical of residential uses that, when used correctly and in compliance with existing laws and regulations, would not result in a significant hazard to people in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the potential release of hazardous materials that could occur with the implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
□ □ [g] □
455
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 63 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) 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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I ESA was prepared by Robin Environmental Management (REM) in January 2024 for the Project site. The purpose of the Phase I analysis was to evaluate the Project site for potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) that may be present, offsite conditions that may impact the subject property, and/or conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the Project site. ASTM defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as “the presence or likely presence of an hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” The Phase I ESA was performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E-1527-21 with a field survey of the subject site and adjacent properties on January 27, 2024.

According to the Phase I, the subject property was not recognized being listed on the following environmental regulatory database record research (NETR database): NPL, RCRA-TSD, CERCLIS, NFRAP, RCRA-G, ERNS, CORRACTS, CORTESE, CALSITES, LUST, UST, SWF, and DTSC (REM, 2024). In addition, based on the government records search, there are no active cleanup sites, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), or any sites identified as potential environmental concerns within the immediate area of the Project site.

Based on site observations, interviews and review of available documents and the database records search, the Phase I concluded that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property and no Phase II (subsurface investigation) environmental assessment would be required (REM, 2024). Thus, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential Project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. The nearest school to the Project site is Ridge Crest Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing school. In addition, the proposed Project is not anticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes in significant quantities. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site excavation, grading, and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be contained in compliance with existing government regulations.

Residences would not require the use, storage, disposal, or transport of large volumes of hazardous materials that could cause serious environmental damage in the event of an accident. Although hazardous substances would be present and utilized at these residences, such substances are generally present now in the existing development, are typically found in small quantities, and can be cleaned up without affecting the environment. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
456
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 64 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Response:

No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (REM, 2024) prepared for the Project conducted a database search to determine if the Project site or any nearby properties are identified as having hazardous materials. The Phase I record search determined that the Project site was not recognized being listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (REM, 2024). As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest airport is the March Air Reserve Base that is located approximately 5.2 miles west of the Project Site. According to the March Air Reserve Base Land Use Compatibility Plan, the proposed Project is not located in a compatibility zone. Additionally, the residential development would not be of a sufficient height to require modifications to the existing air traffic patterns at the airport and, therefore, would not affect aviation traffic levels or otherwise result in substantial aviation-related safety risks.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Construction
Short-term construction activities would occur within the Project Site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project Site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along surrounding roadways would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections to Bradshaw Circle or Cactus Avenue, or driveway access construction would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (Caltrans, 2014), as incorporated into the construction permits. Thus, impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
Direct access to the Project Site would be provided from Bradshaw Circle by two driveways. The Project is required to provide internal streets and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, as verified through the City’s permitting process. As such, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. □ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
457
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 65 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Response:

No Impact. The Project Site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE, 2025). Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.2.8 – Wildland Urban Interface • Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.9 – Hazardous Materials • Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.10 – Air Crash Hazards - Figure 5-5 – Air Crash Hazards

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.5 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
- Figure 4.5-1 – Hazardous Materials Sites
- Figure 4.5-2 – Floodplains and High Fire Hazard Areas - Figure 4.5-3 – City Areas Affected by Aircraft Hazard Zones

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. March Air Reserve Base (MARB)/March Inland Port (MIP) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on November 13, 2014, (chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/2023-06/March.pdf

5. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit-plan.pdf • Chapter 5 – Wildland and Urban Fires
- Figure 4-2 – Moreno Valley High Fire Area Map 2016
• Chapter 12 – Dam Failure/Inundation
- Figure 12-2 Moreno Valley Evacuation Routes Map 2015
• Chapter 13 – Pipeline
- Figure 13-1 – Moreno Valley Pipeline Map 2016
• Chapter 14 – Transportation
- Figure 14-1.1 – Moreno Valley Air Crash Hazard Area Map 2016 • Chapter 16 – Hazardous Materials Accident
- Moreno Valley Hazardous Materials Site Locations Map 2016

6. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2024 chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://moval.gov/departments/fire/pdf/MV-EOP-2024.pdf

7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.

Accessed: https://moval.gov/departments/fire/HighFireMap-Review.html

8. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APN 478-090-018, 024, & 025, Moreno Valley, CA. January 27, 2024.

Prepared by Robin Environmental Management (REM) (Appendix F).

9. March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November 13, 2014. Adopted by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC). Accessed: http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20- %20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf (Accessed May 26, 2021). □ □ □ ~
458
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 66 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Implementation of the proposed Project includes site preparation, construction of new buildings, and infrastructure improvements. Grading, stockpiling of materials, excavation, construction of new structures, and landscaping activities would expose and loosen sediment and building materials, which would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water quality.

Additionally, construction generally requires the use of heavy equipment and construction-related materials and chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. In the absence of proper controls, these potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction activities and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, resulting in a significant impact to water quality.

Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality.

However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit and included as PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer (QSD) is required to be included in the SWPPP for the Project, and typically includes the following types of erosion control methods that are designed to minimize potential pollutants entering stormwater during construction:
• Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas;
• Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent offsite transport of sediment; • Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check dams within paved roadways;
• Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for forecasted wind storms; • Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal; • Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas; • Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City roadways; • Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. □ □ [g] □
459
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 67 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements, included as PPP WQ-1, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project includes operation of single-family residential uses. Potential pollutants associated with the proposed uses include various chemicals from cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. If these pollutants discharge into surface waters, it could result in degradation of water quality.

In the existing condition, site drainage sheet flows across the property to the west towards Bradshaw Circle. A portion of the site’s drainage, identified as Area 1, flows southerly to Cactus Avenue where it is collected by a series of catch basins within Cactus Avenue, and is ultimately directed into an offsite storm drain. Onsite drainage flows within Area 2 flow offsite towards Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue where the flows are collected by a series of existing catch basins along Cactus Avenue. (Hydrology 2021)
In the developed condition, onsite flows would be conveyed to one of two onsite bioretention basins (Lots A and B), and these basins would connect to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle which would connect to the existing RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 in Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted. (Hydrology 2021) As described previously, the WQMP is required to be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. The Project’s WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. In addition, the City’s permitting process would ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the Project. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2), would ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality; and impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes that EMWD’s local supplies include groundwater, desalinated groundwater, and recycled water.1 Groundwater is pumped from the Hemet/San Jacinto and West San Jacinto areas of the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. Groundwater in portions of the West San Jacinto Basin is high in salinity and requires desalination for potable use. EMWD owns and operates two desalination plants that convert brackish groundwater from the West San Jacinto Basin into potable water. EMWD also owns, operates, and maintains its own recycled water system that consists of four Regional Water Reclamation Facilities and several storage ponds spread throughout EMWD’s service area that are all connected through the recycled water system.

As detailed on Table WQ-1, the EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) shows that the anticipated production of groundwater and desalinated water would remain the same between 2020 and 2045. In 2045, groundwater and desalinated groundwater would provide 12.8 percent of the District’s water supply. 1 As of February 2025, EMWD’s 2020 UWMP has not been adopted. □ □ ~ □
460
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 68 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table WQ-1: Total Retail Water Supply (AFY)
Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2045
Percentage
Purchased or Imported Water 66,447 72,147 70,247 74,747 78,847 42.14% Groundwater (not desalinated)
pumped from the Hemet/ San
Jacinto Basin
7,303 7,303 7,303 7,303 7,303 3.90%
Groundwater (not desalinated)
pumped from the West San Jacinto
Basin
11,450 11,450 11,450 11,450 11,450 6.12%
Desalinated Water- Groundwater 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 7.16% Recycled Water 43,330 49,020 54,500 59,800 64,100 34.26% Purified Water Replenishment (IPR) 4,000 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 6.41% Total Retail Supply 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100 100% Source: 2020 UWMP
As detailed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the supply of water listed in Table WQ-1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2045 to meet all of the City’s estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, impacts related to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Based on low soil infiltration test results at the Project Site, onsite bioretention basins are proposed as the preferred method for treating onsite flows. After completion of Project construction, the Project would convey stormwater drainage into landscaped areas and the two onsite water quality bioretention basins, which would route runoff to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle that connects to RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 in Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted (Robert M. Beers, 2021). Therefore, impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Response:

Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, the Project site does not include any slopes, which reduces the erosion potential and the large majority of soil disturbance would be related to excavation and backfill for installation of building foundations and underground utilities.

The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for the proposed construction activities (included as PPP WQ-1). The SWPPP is required to address sitespecific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities.

In addition, a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) is required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, in order to protect against substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or alteration of the drainage pattern. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from development activities. With implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be verified by the City during the permitting approval process, impacts related to alteration of an existing □ □ ~ □
461
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 69 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
drainage pattern during construction that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, and increases in stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

Operation
After completion of Project construction, impervious area would increase on the Project site. However, the impervious areas would not be subject to erosion and the pervious areas would be landscaped with groundcovers that would inhibit erosion.

As discussed previously, in the existing condition, site drainage sheet flows across the property to the west towards Bradshaw Circle. A portion of the site’s drainage, identified as Area 1, flows southerly to Cactus Avenue where it is collected by a series of catch basins within Cactus Avenue, and is ultimately placed into an offsite storm drain. Onsite drainage flows within Area 2 flow offsite towards Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue, where the flows are collected by a series of existing bioretention basins along Cactus Avenue (Robert M. Beers, 2021).

In the developed condition, onsite flows would be conveyed to one of two onsite bioretention basins (Lots A and B), and these basins would connect to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle which would connect to the existing RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 in Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted (Robert M. Beers, 2021).

Additionally, the MS4 permit requires new development projects to prepare a WQMP (included as PPP WQ-2) that is required to include BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control BMPs. A Preliminary WQMP has been completed and included as Appendix H. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the site-specific design limits the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project Site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a stream or river. Implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils. These activities could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and change runoff flow rates. However, as described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities.

Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding onsite or offsite from development activities. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would result in an increase of stormflows. The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern and convey runoff to bioretention basins which connect to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle, which then connects to the existing RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 in Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted. (Robert M. Beers, 2021) Moreover, as part of the permitting approval process, the proposed preliminary drainage design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the appropriate design flows. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing MS4 permit regulations would ensure that Project impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern or flooding from operational activities would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
462
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 70 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

As described previously, the Project Site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a stream or river. Implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

Construction
As described in the previous response, construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in increased runoff and polluted runoff if drainage is not properly controlled. However, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) that would address site specific pollutant and drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of polluted runoff and increased runoff during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP (per PPP WQ-1) as verified by the City through the construction permitting process would prevent construction-related impacts related to increases in run-off and pollution from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would generate increased runoff. However, the Project would manage the increased flow with bioretention basins that route runoff to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle which then connects to the existing RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 on Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted (Robert M. Beers, 2021).

Moreover, as part of the permitting approval process, the proposed preliminary drainage design and grading plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the proposed drainage would accommodate the appropriate design flows. The proposed Project would increase the impervious surface area on the Project site compared to the existing condition, and the proposed Project would convey and treat all potential stormwater runoff from the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute additional runoff water to the downstream storm drain system that would exceed the storm drain system’s capacity, and impacts would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C0770G, the Project site is designated as zone X, meaning it is in an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2020). As detailed in the previous responses, implementation of the Project would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces on the site.

The Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern, and drainage would be conveyed to onsite bioretention basins that would route runoff to a new 24-inch diameter storm drain in Bradshaw Circle which would connect to the existing RCFC Storm Drain Line F-4 in Cactus Avenue. The Project would result in a net incremental increase of 0.49 cubic feet per second of flow to the storm drain in Cactus Avenue; however, the storm drain would be able to accommodate this increase without impact nor would offsite properties be impacted (Robert M. Beers, 2021). Therefore, the Project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows by the addition of the impervious surfaces. As detailed previously, the City’s permitting process would ensure that the drainage system specifications adhere to the existing MS4 permit regulations, and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
463
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 71 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Response:

No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 06065C0770G, the Project site not within a flood zone (FEMA, 2020). Thus, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the Project.

Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The proposed Project is approximately 43 miles from the ocean shoreline. Based on the distance of the Project Site to the Pacific Ocean, the Project Site is not at risk of inundation from tsunami. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami. No impact would occur.

Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The Project site is not located adjacent to any water retention facilities. For this reason, the Project site is not at risk of inundation from seiche waves. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from seiche. No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES Construction General Permit and PPP WQ-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Thus, construction of the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Also, as described previously, new development projects are required to implement a WQMP (per PPP WQ-2) that would comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit regulations. The WQMP and applicable BMPs are verified as part of the City’s permitting approval process, and construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not conflict of obstruct with a water quality control plan.

The proposed Project is within the San Jacinto groundwater basin, which is classified as a high priority basin within the California Department of Water Resources SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard (SGMA, 2025). In addition, as detailed previously, the EMWD manages basin water supply and the anticipated production of groundwater would remain steady from 2025 through 2040 (as shown in Table WQ-1). As described previously and further detailed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s supply of water listed in Table WQ-1 would be sufficient during both normal years and multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2045 to meet all of the City’s estimated needs, including the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the groundwater management plan and would not conflict with or obstruct its implementation. Thus, impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit). The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of Moreno Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan, Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project applicant shall have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Chapter 8.10 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the Project.
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
464
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 72 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.7 – Water Quality - Figure 5-4 – Flood Hazards
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.5 – Water Resources - Figure 6-1 Water Purveyor Service Area Map

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.5 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
- Figure 4.5-2 – Floodplains and High Fire Hazard Areas • Section 5.7 – Hydrology and Water Quality
- Figure 4.7-1 – Storm Water Flows and Major Drainage Facilities - Figure 4.7-2 – Groundwater Basins

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.080 – Liquid and Solid Waste

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 – Flood Damage Prevention

5. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.21 – Grading Regulations

6. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Groundwater Reliability Plus, http://gwrplus.org/

7. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan

8. Preliminary Hydrology Report. April 15, 2020; Revised September 24, 2021. Prepared by Robert M. Beers (Appendix G).

9. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. August 2024. Prepared by Adkan Engineers (Appendix H).

10. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. 2021. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search (Accessed May 26, 2021).

11. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. 2025. Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (Accessed February 18, 2025).

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Response:

No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and is surrounded by a roadway to the south followed by single-family residences; single-family residences to the north; vacant land to the east; and single-family residences and commercial uses to the west. The proposed Project would redevelop the site to provide 37 single-family residential units, which are consistent with the existing single-family residences to the north, west, and south of the site. Therefore, the change of the Project site from a vacant site to single-family residential would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the Project would not change roadways or install any infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to physical division of 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? Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project Site is currently vacant and offsite improvement areas are developed with Bradshaw Circle. The Project would redevelop the Project site to provide 37 new single-family residences, which would be similar to the single-family residential uses that are located adjacent to the west of the site, to the south of the site beyond Cactus Avenue, and to the north of the site. □ □ □ lXJ
□ □ ~ □
465
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 73 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
General Plan
The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Residential: Max. 5 du/ac (R5), which does not have the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site to Low Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10), which would allow the proposed single-family residences at a density of 10 units per net acre. The General Plan Land Use Element states that the Residential: Max. 10 du/ac (R10) designation allows for development of residential uses to a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. As the Project would develop residences at a density of 7.9 units per gross acre, it would be consistent with the proposed land use designation, and the proposed change in land use would be less than significant.

Further, the Project would be consistent with City General Plan goals and policies, as discussed in Table LU-1.

Table LU-1: Consistency with General Plan Goals & Policies Goal or Policy Project Consistency
Goal 2.1: A pattern of land uses, which organizes future growth, minimizes conflicts between land uses, and
which promotes the rational utilization of presently
underdeveloped and undeveloped parcels.

Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop the
vacant site with 37 new single-family residences on an
existing vacant site in the City, which would promote the rational utilization of a presently undeveloped parcel.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Goal 2.1.

Goal 2.4: A supply of housing in sufficient numbers
suitable to meet the diverse needs of future residents
and to support healthy economic development without
creating an oversupply of any particular type of housing.

Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop the
vacant site with 37 new single-family residences, which would assist in meeting the diverse needs of future
residents. In addition, the Project would provide 3
different plans and architectural styles for the single-family residences, which would support healthy economic
development and an oversupply of a particular type of
housing would not occur. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Goal 2.4.

Policy 2.2.8: The primary purpose of areas
designated Residential 10 is to provide for a variety of residential products and to encourage innovation in
housing types. Developments within Residential 10
areas are typically expected to provide amenities not
generally found in suburban subdivisions, such as
common open space and recreational areas. The
maximum allowable density shall be 10.0 dwelling
units per acre.

Consistent. The proposed Project would
redevelop the Project site with single-family residences at a density of 7.9 dwelling unit per acre, which would be consistent with the maximum allowable density of 10
dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy 2.2.8.

Policy 2.2.12: Planned Unit Developments (PUD) shall
be encouraged for residential construction in order to
provide housing that is varied by type, design, form of ownership, and size. PUD’s shall also provide
opportunities to cluster units to protect significant
environmental features and/or provide unique
recreational facilities.

Consistent. As described in the Project Description, the proposed Project would provide 3 different plans and 3
different architectural styles for the single-family
residences to provide housing that is varied by type,
design, and size. In addition, the Project would provide sidewalks and landscaping along the streets and within
common areas. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with Policy 2.2.12.

Policy 2.2.14: Encourage a diversity of housing types,
including conventional, factory built, mobile home, and multiple family dwelling units.

Consistent. As described in the previous response, the
proposed Project would provide 3 different plans and 3
different architectural styles for the single-family
residences to provide a diversity of housing types.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy

2.2.14. Policy 2.3.1: Within individual residential projects, a variety of floor plans and elevations should be offered.

Policy 2.3.2: Encourage building placement variations,
roofline variations, architectural projections, and other embellishments to enhance the visual interest along
residential streets.

Consistent. The proposed residential development
would be designed with contemporary architectural
elements, multi-level rooflines, and a complementary
color scheme. Architectural elements in the exterior
466
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 74 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
design would include stucco finish, stone veneer accents, metal awnings and deck railings, and vinyl window and
door trim. The Project would be designed with Spanish,
French, and Cottage style architectural elements. When
complete, the development would be representative of a
modern residential community. In addition, landscaping
improvements associated with the proposed Project are
anticipated to improve the existing visual character of the Project site and would serve to provide increased visual interest along residential streets. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy 2.3.2.

Policy 2.3.3: Discourage the development of singlefamily residences with a bulk (building mass) that is out of scale with the size of the parcels on which they are located.

Consistent. The proposed Project would construct the
proposed single-family residences with 3 different plans designed to conform to the size of the parcel on which
they are located. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with Policy 2.3.3.

Policy 2.3.4: Design large-scale small lot single family and multiple family residential projects to group
dwellings around individual open space and/or
recreational features.

Consistent. The proposed Project would construct the
proposed single-family residences with private open
space. 10,983 SF The single- family residences would be grouped around a 10,983 SF community recreation area.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy

2.3.4. Zoning
The Project Site is currently zoned Residential 5 District (R5). The primary purpose of the R5 district is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This district is intended as an area for the development of singlefamily residential and mobile home subdivisions at a maximum allowable density of 5 DUs per net acre, as indicated in Section 9.03.020 of the Municipal Code. As described previously, the Project would develop single-family residences at a density of 7.9 units per gross acre and would require a zone change to Residential Single-Family 10 (RS10) District. In addition, the Project is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows for a development to establish unique criteria for such things as setbacks, lot width and depth, building separation, lot size, etc. This arrangement is made in exchange for a greater level of detail, including more open space and diverse housing options, surpassing the typical requirements of standard residential development. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable zoning regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.1 – Land Use - Figure 1-1 – Neighboring Lands Uses
- Figure 1-2 – Land Use Map
• Chapter 8 – 2014 – 2021 Housing Element

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.12 – Population and Housing
- Attachments #1 - #10 – Housing Sites Inventory
- Exhibits A1 – A11, C, D, and E – Maps of Housing Sites

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code 467
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 75 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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 the residents of the state?
Response:

No Impact. The Project Site is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), according to the Mineral Land Classification Map provided by the California Department of Conservation. The MRZ-3 zone within the Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) Study Area is defined as areas containing mineral deposits of which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data. The City’s General Plan EIR states that no locally, regionally, or statewide significant mineral resources are located within the City. Therefore, development of the site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region, and impacts would not occur. 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?
Response:

No Impact. As described in the previous response, the City’s General Plan EIR states that no locally, regionally, or statewide significant mineral resources are located within the City. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resources, and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.9 – Mineral Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.14 – Mineral Resources

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.02.120 – Surface Mining Permits

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.21.020 A 7 – Permits Required

5. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA, Public Resources Code, Sections 2710-2796), https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/lawsandregulations

6. California Department of Conservation. 2020. Mineral Land Classification. Accessed:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (Accessed May 26, 2021). □ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
468
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 76 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code
Sound level limits: Chapter 11.80.030 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes maximum noise levels permitted within the city, which are listed in Table N-1:

Table N-1: City of Moreno Valley Maximum Continuous Sound Levels Duration per Day
(Continuous Hours)
Sound Level (dBA)
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
2 100

1.5 102
1 105
.5 110
.25 115
Source: City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code
Sensitive Receptor Noise Levels: Chapter 11.80.030 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes the permissible noise level that may be received at nearby sensitive uses (e.g., residential). For noise-sensitive residential properties 200 feet from the source, the exterior noise level shall not exceed 60 dBA during daytime hours (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and shall not exceed 55 dBA during the nighttime hours (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.) (Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80).

Construction Noise: Section 8.14.040.E of the City’s Municipal Code also provides construction noise standards, which state that any construction within the city shall only be completed between the hour of seven a.m. to eight p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, unless written approval is obtained from the city building official or city engineer.

Sensitive Receptors
The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the single-family homes located directly north of the Project site. There are also single-family homes located approximately 50 feet to the west and 90 feet south of the Project Site.

The nearest school to the Project Site is Ridge Crest Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project Site.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To identify the existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, noise level measurements were taken on and adjacent to the Project site on March 26, 2024. As shown on Table N-2, the average noise levels in the Project area range from

58.8 dBA to 88.8 dBA. Table N-2 also shows that both the daytime and nighttime noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors currently exceeds the City’s residential noise standards of 60 dBA Leq during the daytime and 55 dBA Leq during the nighttime.

Table N-2: Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Site
No. Site Description
1-hr Average
(dBA Leq/Time)
Average
(dBA CNEL)
Minimum Maximum
L-1
Located on the western boundary of the
Project Site, approximately 276 feet
north of the centerline of Cactus Avenue

42.1 2:00 a.m.

59.1 4:00 p.m.

57.1 L-2
Located near the northeast corner of the
Project Site, approximately 645 feet
north of the centerline of Cactus Avenue

38.3 1:00 a.m.

57.5 12:00 p.m.

53.8 Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
469
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 77 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the Project Site, construction of the 37 single-family residences, paving of the onsite driveways and parking areas, application of architectural coatings, and repaving of Bradshaw Circle. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the single-family residences located along the Project Site’s northern property line.

Table N-3 shows the noise levels from construction at the closest sensitive receptors. As shown, In addition, the Project would comply with the allowable construction times pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, the construction‐related noise levels would not exceed any standards. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-3: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor Phase Equipment Quantity Equipment Noise
Level at Sensitive
Receptor1 (dBA Leq)
Combined Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 2 72.3 75.3 Grading Graders 1 73.3 75.9
Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 72.3
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 2 72.3 75.3 Paving Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 72.3 73.8
Rollers 1 68.3
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 66.0 66.0
Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA Leq) 75.9 FTA Daytime General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria (dBA Leq) 80.0 Noise levels exceed threshold? No 1 Noise levels measured from center of site Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
Operation
Development of the proposed Project would generate approximately 26 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 35 trips during the p.m. peak hour, for a total of 349 daily trips. The noise generated from these vehicular trips has been identified through a comparison of noise generated by traffic volumes with and without the Project, provided in Table N-4. In addition, Table N-5 shows roadway noise level increases due to the Project in 2040 conditions.

Table N-4: Roadway Noise Impacts – Existing Conditions
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors to Centerline (dBA CNEL)
Significant
Impact?1
Existing without
Project
Conditions
Existing with
Project
Conditions
Increase as a
Result of the
Project
Cactus Avenue Moreno Beach Drive to
Redlands Boulevard 76.5 76.5 0.0 No
1 A significant impact would occur if Without Project noise levels are 65.0 dBA CNEL or lower, and the Project causes noise levels to increase above 65.0 dBA CNEL or without Project noise levels are above 65.0 dBA CNEL and the Project results in an increase of 3.0 dBA or more above Without Project conditions.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
□ □ ~ □
470
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 78 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table N-5: Roadway Noise Impacts – 2040 Conditions
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors to Centerline (dBA CNEL)
Significant
Impact?1
Existing without
Project
Conditions
Existing with
Project
Conditions
Increase as a
Result of the
Project
Cactus Avenue Moreno Beach Drive to
Redlands Boulevard 78.1 78.1 0.0 No
1 A significant impact would occur if Without Project noise levels are 65.0 dBA CNEL or lower, and the Project causes noise levels to increase above 65.0 dBA CNEL or without Project noise levels are above 65.0 dBA CNEL and the Project results in an increase of 3.0 dBA or more above Without Project conditions.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
Objective 6.5 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element requires the City to minimize noise impacts from significant noise generators including roadway noise impacts. Based on the City’s General Plan, noise levels up to 65.0 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for single-family residential uses. A significant impact would occur if the without Project noise levels are 65.0 dBA CNEL or lower and the Project causes noise levels to increase above 65.0 dBA CNEL or if the without Project noise levels are above 65.0 dBA CNEL and the Project results in an increase of 3.0 dBA or more. As shown in Tables N-4 and N-5 above, the Project traffic would result in an increase of 0.0 dBA, which is below the noise increase thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to operational noise would be less than significant.

Onsite Operational Noise Levels
The main sources of potential onsite noise would include motor vehicle activity and HVAC equipment. These types of onsite stationary noises would not typically be categorized as loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise. In order to ensure that onsite noise levels do not exceed the City of Moreno Valley noise standards, a stationary noise analysis was conducted. The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code establishes maximum noise level thresholds of 60.0 dBA Lmax during daytime hours (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 55.0 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.), as measured at a distance of 200 feet or more from the real property line of the source of the sound. Therefore, for a conservative analysis, this study assesses noise impacts at a distance of 200 feet from the noise source location. The analysis considers continuous operation of HVAC units during both daytime hours (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime hours (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.). The result is a worst-case assessment of impacts, as HVAC units would likely operate only intermittently throughout the day. The analysis also takes into account the noise attenuation effects of the six-toeight-foot-tall property line wall along the northern, southern, eastern, and western boundary of the proposed project site.

Table N-6 shows the expected noise levels of HVAC operation at the nearest receptors along the northern property line.

As shown in Table N-6, onsite HVAC units are expected create a noise level of approximately 44.8 dBA Lmax at a distance of 200 feet from the noise source, which does not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime noise level thresholds of 60.0 dBA Lmax and 55.0 dBA Lmax, respectively. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-6: Onsite Operational Noise Levels
Source
Equipment Noise Level at 200 feet from Noise Source
(dBA Lmax)
Daytime (8 am to 10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm to 8 am)
HVAC Equipment 44.8 44.8
Municipal Code Noise
Thresholds

60.0 55.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
471
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 79 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would require the operation of off-road equipment and trucks that are known sources of vibration. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Vibrations at buildings could produce results that range from no perceptible effects at the low levels to damage at the highest levels. To determine the vibratory impacts during construction, reference construction equipment vibration levels were utilized and then extrapolated to the façade of the nearest adjacent structures. The nearest adjacent structures to the Project Site are the residences located along the northern boundary of the Project Site. The nearest structures are located approximately 34 feet from the nearest expected area of bulldozer and truck activity and approximately 95 feet from the nearest expected area of vibratory roller activity. All structures surrounding the project site are new structures. No historical or fragile buildings are known to be located within the vicinity of the site.

Construction of the Project is not expected to require the use of substantial vibration-inducing equipment or activities, such as pile driving or blasting. The main sources of vibration during construction would be from operation of equipment such as a bulldozer during site preparation and loading trucks during grading and excavation. The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set within the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Table N-7: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration
Level at 25 feet
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caison Drill 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
Table N-8 shows the Project’s construction vibration levels at the nearest structures to the Project construction area.

Construction impacts are assessed at 34 feet from the nearest expected location of a bulldozer and truck activity and 95 feet from the nearest expected location of vibratory roller activity based on where this equipment would be utilized onsite.

As shown in Table N-8, Project construction is not anticipated to cause any potential damage to the nearest residences.

Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Table N-8: Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction
Activity
Distance to Nearest
Structure (ft)
Duration Calculated Vibration
Level (PPV)
Damage Potential
Large Bulldozer 34 Continuous/Frequent 0.063 None
Loaded Trucks 34 Continuous/Frequent 0.054 None
Vibratory Rollers 95 Continuous/Frequent 0.048 None
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I)
Operation
Operation of the proposed single-family uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the residences, large deliveries, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and

0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and therefore, would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
472
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 80 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES: Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is March Air Reserve Base that is located approximately 5.2 miles west of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the March Air Reserve Base (March ARB). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.4 – Noise
- Figure 5-2 – Buildout Noise Contours

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.4 – Noise
- Figure 4.4-1 – March Air Reserve Base Noise Impact Area - Figure 4.4-2 – Buildout Noise Contours – Alternative 1 - Figure 4.4-3 -- Buildout Noise Contours – Alternative 2 - Figure 4.4-4 -- Buildout Noise Contours – Alternative 3 • Appendix D – Noise Analysis, Wieland Associates, Inc., June 2003.

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.140 Noise and Sound

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulations

5. March Air Reserve Base (MARB)/March Inland Port (MIP) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on November 13, 2014, (http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20- %20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-145812-700)

6. Noise Impact Analysis, Tentative Tract Map No. 37858, City of Moreno Valley. December 31, 2020. Prepared by Vista Environmental (Appendix I).

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 road or other infrastructure)?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would construct 37 single-family residences on the Project site. According to data from the California Department of Finance (CDF) published in January 2024, the City of Moreno Valley has a residential population of207,146 persons and 58,713 total housing units. Of these, 47,088 (approximately 80 percent) are single-family detached units. In addition, it is estimated that the City has an average of 3.53 persons per household.

Based on this information, the proposed Project would result in a net increase of approximately 130 new residents.

Therefore, the Project would represent a population increase of approximately 0.07 percent and a 0.06 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth on a site that has been previously developed would not constitute substantial growth.

The proposed Project is located in an urbanized residential area of the City and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses and is already served by the existing roadways and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended or constructed to serve areas beyond the Project site, which could reduce further population growth, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
473
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 81 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Response:

No Impact. As described above, the Project Site is vacant and undeveloped land and does not contain any housing or people on the Project site. The proposed Project would construct 37 new single-family residences and would not displace any existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere. Thus, impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. California Department of Finance. January 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2024 with 2020 Census Benchmark. Accessed:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ (Accessed July 29, 2024).

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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:
i) Fire protection?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Moreno Valley Fire Department provides fire protection to the Project area.

The City’s Fire Department is the primary response agency to fires, emergency medical service, hazardous materials incidents, traffic accidents, terrorist acts, catastrophic weather events, and technical rescues. Additionally, the City’s Office of Emergency Management is located within the Fire Department allowing for a well-coordinated response to both natural and man-made disasters. The Moreno Valley Fire Department (MVFD) is part of the CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department’s regional, integrated, cooperative fire protection organization, which provides access to other regional fire and emergency equipment and/or services, as needed.

There are two existing fire stations within two miles of the Project Site. Fire Station 58 is located 2.4 miles from the Project site at 28040 Eucalyptus Avenue. This fire station is a three-bay facility that can house two engine companies, a truck company, and additional resources as needed. This fire station currently houses one paramedic engine company and a type 3 fire engine. Fire Station 99 is 2.8 miles from the Project site at 13400 Morrison Street. This fire station is a two-bay facility that houses one paramedic engine company (MVFD, 2020).

The proposed Project could potentially increase the demand for MVFD services due to the construction of the new residential units. As discussed in previously, the Project would generate approximately 130 new residents.

The Project would develop 37 single-family residences in an area already served by the City’s Fire Department and within close proximity to two existing fire stations. The Project would be adequately served by the two fire stations that currently serve the Project area. Additionally, the Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code (included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapters 8.36) and would be reviewed by the Fire Department during the Project permitting process to ensure that the Project plans meet the fire protection requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Developer would be required to pay development fees (including permit and inspection fees) that would be applied to the City’s public services including fire protection services. □ □ □ [g]
□ □ [L] □
474
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 82 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) Police protection?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Moreno Valley receives policing services through a contract for services with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office. The City’s police station is located at 22850 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, which is approximately 5.7 miles from the Project site. Because the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, implementation of the Project would result in an onsite population that would create the need for police services. Calls for police service during Project construction may include: theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. Operation of the Project could generate a typical range of police service calls, such as burglaries, thefts, and disturbances. To reduce the potential for these types of crimes, security concerns are addressed in the Project design by providing low-intensity security lighting for the purposes of wayfinding, safety, and building structure security.

Although an incremental increase could result from implementation of the Project, the need for law enforcement services from the proposed Project would be limited and within an area that is currently served. Thus, the need for policing services generated by the Project would not require the construction or expansion of police department facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the Developer would be required to pay development fees (including permit and inspection fees) that would be applied to the City’s public services including police protection services. iii) Schools?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Moreno Valley Unified School District, which operates and maintains 43 schools, including 23 elementary schools (K‐5), 6 middle schools (7‐8), 5 high schools (9‐12), and 9 specialized schools. The site is currently located within the attendance area boundaries of Ridgecrest Elementary School, Mountain View Middle School, and Valley View High School.

The Project would develop 37 single-family residences. The Moreno Valley Unified School District’s April 2020 Developer Fee Justification Report indicates that there are over 53,581 residential dwelling units existing within the District. It is anticipated that a total of 13,156 additional units will be constructed by 2040. Based on the District’s Student Generation Rate of 0.6041, this will generate over 7,947 additional K-12 students during that period (MVUSD 2020). With the Student Generation Rate of 0.6041 per residential unit, the Project will generate approximately 23 additional K-12 students upon implementation.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a State school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees (included as PPP PS-1) to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. As a result, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant with the Government Code required fee payments.
iv) Parks?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. Based on Map 3.1, Existing Parks and Community Facilities, in the City of Moreno Valley Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, the City operates and maintains six parks within the Project’s vicinity: Rock Ridge Park, approximately 2.9 miles to the northwest; Morrison Park, approximately 2.9 miles to the northwest; Ridgecrest Park, approximately 1.6 miles to the southeast; Weston Park, approximately 3.6 miles to the northwest; the Moreno Valley Community Park, approximately 6.4 miles to the west; and Celebration Park, approximately

1.2 miles to the southwest.
□ □ ~ □
f l I l l6l □
□ □ l6l □
475
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 83 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Project includes the construction of 37 single-family residences, including 10,983 SF at the recreation – open space lot, which would provide recreational facilities for the new residents. In addition, Section 3.38.080 and Chapter 3.40 of the City’s Municipal Code include requirements for mitigation fees in favor of park improvements and/or parkland dedication; where applicable, these fees would be included as a condition of the approval of the residential development (included as PPP PS-2). These fees would be used in the City of the purpose of acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing and maintaining, to the extent permitted by law, park improvements provided for in the City’s General Plan and its adopted capital improvement program or an adopted master plan of parks and recreation facilities, as amended from time to time. Therefore, as the Project would provide sufficient onsite open space for its residents, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant. Additionally, the developer would be required to pay park fees described above. v) Other public facilities?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop 37 single-family residential units within an area that already contains single-family residential. The additional residences would result in a limited incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the Project area is already served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in residences, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-1: The Project will be required to pay applicable development fees levied by the Moreno Valley Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.827) to offset any effects on school facilities resulting from new development.

PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a condition of the approval of a residential development, the Project shall pay applicable park related fees and/or dedicate parkland pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3.38.080 and Chapter 3.40.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.5 – Schools - Figure 1-3 – School District Boundaries
• Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.6 – Library Services • Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.7 – Special Districts • Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.5 – Other City Facilities • Chapter 4 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element – Section 4.3 – Parks and Recreation - Figure 3-2 – Future Parklands Acquisition Areas
- Figure 3-3 – Master Plan of Trails
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.1 – Police Protection and Crime Preventions • Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.2 – Fire and Emergency Services - Figure 5-1 – Fire Stations

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.13 – Public Services
- Figure 4.13-1 – Location of Public Facilities

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. City of Moreno Valley Fire Department Website. Accessed: http://www.morenovalley.ca.us/city_hall/departments/fire/index-fire.shtml (Accessed May 11, 2020).

5. City of Moreno Valley Police Department Website. Accessed: http://www.morenovalley.ca.us/city_hall/departments/police/index-police.shtml (Accessed May 11, 2020).

6. City of Moreno Valley Parks, Recreational, and Open Spaces Comprehensive Master Plan. Accessed: April 21, 2025

7. http://www.ci.moreno-valley.ca.us/resident_services/park_rec/pdfs/park-mp0910.pdf (Accessed May 11, 2020).

8. Moreno Valley Unified School District Fee Justification Report for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development. 2020.
□ □ ~ □
476
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 84 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION – Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project would develop 37 single-family residences and 10,983 SF of recreation/ open space area would be provided for its residents. As discussed previously, residential developments are subject to Section 3.38.080 and Chapter 3.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, which include requirements for mitigation fees in favor of park improvements and/or parkland dedication; where applicable, these fees would be included as a condition of the approval of the residential development (included as PPP PS-2). These fees would be used in the City of the purpose of acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing and maintaining, to the extent permitted by law, park improvements provided for in the City’s General Plan and its adopted capital improvement program or an adopted master plan of parks and recreation facilities, as amended from time to time. Therefore, as the Project would provide sufficient onsite open space for its residents, impacts related to the increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.

Additionally, the developer would be required to pay park fees described above. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, while the Project would contribute park development fees pursuant to Municipal Code 3.38.080 (included as PPP PS-2) to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project includes 10,983 SF of recreation – open space for residents and the impact of this recreational feature is included as part of the overall Project analysis contained in this Initial Study. Therefore, impacts specific to recreation would be less than significant. Additionally, the developer would be required to pay park fees described above.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-2: Park Fees, provided in Section 15, Public Services.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 4 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element – Section 4.3 – Parks and Recreation - Figure 3-1 Open Space
- Figure 3-2 – Future Parklands Acquisition Areas
- Figure 3-3 – Master Plan of Trails

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.13 – Public Services
- Figure 4.13-1 – Location of Public Facilities

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code XVII.TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the Project would generate vehicular trips from construction workers traveling to and from Project site, delivery of construction supplies and import materials to, and export of debris from, the Project Site.

However, these activities would only occur for a period of 12 months. The increase of trips during construction activities would be limited and is not anticipated to exceed the number of operational trips described below. The short-term vehicle trips from construction of the Project would generate less than significant traffic related impacts. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
477
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 85 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Operation
As shown in Table T-1 below, the proposed Project would generate approximately 26 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 35 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and a total of 349 daily trips.78 Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
Notes: DU = Dwelling Units
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021 Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2024 (Appendix J)
According to Exhibit A of the City of Moreno Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, projects that generate fewer than 100 vehicle trips during the peak hours are generally exempt from the requirement to prepare a traffic impact analysis. Operation of the Project would not generate over 100 AM or PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the Project would not result in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). The RTA provides both local and regional services throughout the region with 38 fixed routes, 9 commuter link routes, and Dial-A-Ride services. The existing RTA bus stop for Route 20, located approximately 0.3 miles from the Project site on Moreno Beach Drive, is the closest existing route to the Project. Operation of the Project would not affect the operation of the bus route. Thus, no impacts would occur. In addition, both sidewalks and bicycle lanes are located adjacent to the Project site on Cactus Avenue. The proposed Project would not alter any of the existing bicycle or sidewalk facilities. Thus, impacts related to bicycle or pedestrian circulation would not occur from implementation of the Project. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines codifies that project related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the project’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3), qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within 0.5 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT.

The City of Moreno Valley has prepared updated Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (Guidelines) for Land Use Projects in June 2020 to address changes to CEQA pursuant to SB-743 to include VMT analysis methodology and thresholds.

The Moreno Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines provide several screening thresholds for determining if a VMT analysis is required. A project VMT analysis would not be required if a project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) or a low VMT area, or if the project is a local serving retail project or other neighborhood use, including projects that generate fewer than 400 daily trips, which corresponds to a typical development of 42 single family housing units. As shown on Table T-1, the Project proposes less than the 42 dwelling units discussed in the guidelines and generates 349 daily vehicle trips, fewer than the 400 daily vehicle trips threshold. Therefore, based on the Moreno Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the Project would be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

Land Use Units Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family
Detached
Housing1
DU 9.43 0.25 0.75 0.70 0.63 0.37 0.94
Project Trip Generation
Detached
Single Family
37 DUa 349 6 20 26 22 13 35
I
I I

I I I I I I I I -
□ □ ~ □
478
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 86 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes development of single-family residences. The Project includes community type uses and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The proposed Project area would be accessed from Bradshaw Circle, as well as through the onsite streets to each residence.

The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. All of the onsite streets would be developed in conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting process includes review of Project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project area on Bradshaw Circle, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of Bradshaw Circle and Cactus Avenue. In addition, repaving of Bradshaw Circle could result in the temporary closure of the street. However, Traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. In addition, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project area would be accessed from Bradshaw Circle, as well as through the onsite streets to each residence. Permitting of these roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project are and would provide two routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project area. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.
□ □ ~ □
□ □ lLJ □
479
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 87 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 5 Circulation Element
- Figure 8-1 – Circulation Plan
- Figure 8-2 – LOS Standards
- Figure 8-3 – Roadway Cross-Sections
- Figure 8-4 – Bikeway Plan

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.2 – Traffic/Circulation
- Figure 4.2-1 – Circulation Plan
- Figure 4.2-2 – General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections
- Figure 4.2-3 – Year 2000 Number of Through Lanes
- Figure 4.2-4 – Year 2000 Daily Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios - Figure 4.2-5 – Year 2000 Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Figure 4.2-6 – Proposed Circulation Plan
- Figure 4.2-7 – LOS Standards
• Appendix B – Traffic Analysis, City of Moreno Valley General Plan Traffic Study, Urban Crossroads, June 2004.

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.18 Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund

5. Moreno Valley Master Bike Plan, adopted January 2015

6. Riverside County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program, December 14, 2011

7. City of Moreno Valley Transportation Engineering Division, Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide. 2007.

8. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis for Cactus and Bradshaw Circle Residential Project. March 22, 2024. Prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix J).

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

AB 52 and SB 18 Requirements
The Project would be required to comply with AB 52 and SB 18 regarding tribal consultation. Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
SB 18 requires cities and counties acting as Lead Agency to contact and consult with California Native American tribes before adopting or amending a General Plan. The intent of SB 18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and local governments at the earliest possible point in the planning process and to enable tribes to manage “cultural places.” Cultural places are defined as a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

In compliance with these requirements, the City sent out to the following Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity. • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Agustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Reservation
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
480
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 88 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) • Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Pechanga Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians requested consultation regarding the proposed Project. The consulting tribes consider the area sensitive for archaeological and cultural resources as several sites are located nearby. Although no information for site specific tribal cultural resources was provided, the consulting tribes requested the inclusion of mitigation due to the potential of the Project to unearth previously undocumented tribal cultural resources during construction. As such, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9 are included, which require Native American monitoring, and procedures for artifact disposition and inadvertent finds.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 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:
i) 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
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. As detailed previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Project Site is currently vacant. Historic aerial photographs and maps of the Project site showed no development in the general vicinity of the Project area until after 1976. All improvements, therefore, are less than 45 years of age and considered modern and of no historical consequence (McKenna, 2020).

The Phase I Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview prepared for the Project included a search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), located at the University of California, Riverside, Riverside County. The records search indicated that the nearest recorded resources are more than one-half mile distant. It was also determined that there are no known significant cultural resources within the Project area and any future development will not adversely impact any significant resources. Furthermore, the Sacred Lands File search completed by the NAHC stated that there are no known/known sacred lands within a 1 mile of the Project site (McKenna, 2020). Therefore, no substantial evidence exists that tribal cultural resources are present in the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
481
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 89 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ii) 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 section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Response:

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As detailed previously, due to the Project sites proximity to previously noted archeological districts, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) believes potential remains for encountering subsurface cultural deposits in areas not previously studied or visibly marked. Archeological and Tribal monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, the preparation of a monitoring report, and the implementation of protocols for the discovery of cultural materials and human remains is recommended. These protocols would include the notification of, and consultation with, tribes regarding all significant finding of Native American origin and are included in Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9 require Native American and archaeological monitoring of excavation and grading activities to avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed by Project construction activities. No information has been provided to the Lead Agency indicating any likelihood of uncovering tribal cultural resources on the Project site, there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Project site, and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9 are included in the event of any inadvertent discoveries of human remains during construction activities.

Additionally, as described previously and included as Mitigation Measure TCR-7, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
TCR 1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities at Bradshaw Collection (Tentative Tract Map 37858).

The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Pechanga Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, including the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in TCR-3. The Project archeologist shall attend the pregrading meeting with the City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth-moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed.

TCR 2 Native American Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall secure agreements with the Pechanga Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and/or Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians for tribal monitoring. The Developer is also required to provide a minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to the tribes of all ground-disturbing activities. The Native American Tribal Representatives shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth-moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological and cultural resources are unearthed. The Native American Monitor(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the Project Archaeologist, the City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct the Tribal Perspective of the mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

TCR 3 Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP). The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
- □ ~ □ □
-
482
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 90 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Project description and location;
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the Project; d. The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details; e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s), and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation; f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items; g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project.

TCR 4 Cultural Resource Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes.

Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. On-site reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure TCR 1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in TCR 3. The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

TCR 5 The City shall verify that the following note is included on the Grading Plan:
“If any suspected archaeological and cultural resources are discovered during ground–disturbing activities and the Project Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the significance of the find." TCR 6 Inadvertent Finds. If potential historic or cultural resources are uncovered during excavation or construction activities at Bradshaw Collection (Tentative Tract Map 37858) that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Project approval, all ground-disturbing activities in the affected area within 100 feet of the uncovered resource must cease immediately and a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives, and all site monitors per the Mitigation Measures, shall be consulted by the City to evaluate the find, and as appropriate recommend alternative measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative effects on the historic, or prehistoric resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologists and Tribal Monitors, if needed. Determinations and recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration and implemented as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in TCR 2 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

TCR 7 Human Remains. If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98). (GP Objective 23.3, CEQA). No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).
483
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 91 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TCR 8 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations. It is understood by all parties that, unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

TCR 9 Archaeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archaeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at the San Diego State University (SDSU), and one (1) copy shall be submitted to each of the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.2 – Cultural and Historical Resources

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.10 – Cultural Resources
- Figure 4.10-1 – Locations of Listed Historic Resource Inventory Structures - Figure 4.10-2 – Location of Prehistoric Sites
- Figure 4.10-3 – Paleontological Resource Sensitive Areas • Appendix F – Cultural Resources Analysis, Study of Historical and Archaeological Resources for the Revised General Plan, City of Moreno Valley, Archaeological Associates, August 2003.

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Title 7 – Cultural Preservation

5. Cultural Resources Inventory for the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California, prepared by Daniel F.

McCarthy, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, October 1987 (This document cannot be provided to the public due to the inclusion of confidential information pursuant to Government Code Section 6254.10.)

6. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview for Tentative Tract Map No. 37858, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. March 18, 2020. Prepared by McKenna et al. (Appendix D). 484
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 92 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIX. 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?
Response:

Less than Significant.

Water Infrastructure
The proposed Project would install a new 8-inch water pipeline in Bradshaw Circle that would connect to an existing 12- inch water pipeline in Cactus Avenue. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CALGreen Code for efficient use of water.

The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing water line located within the Cactus Avenue rights-of-way that has the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no extensions or expansions to the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. The installation of onsite water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide water to any offsite areas.

The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed singlefamily residences is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study. For example, an analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 3, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater Infrastructure
The Project includes installation of onsite sewer lines within the proposed onsite streets that would connect to the existing sewer line in Cactus Avenue. These wastewater flows will be further transported to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study. For example, an analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 3, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
□ □ ~ □
485
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 93 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in an increased demand for water supplies from the 37 single-family residential units. Water supplies to the Project area are provided by EMWD, which serves 555 square miles of western Riverside County and includes the Project area (UWMP, 2020). In 2020, EMWD had a water demand of 153,615 AF, and based on land use and growth projections it anticipates a demand of 208,900 AF in 2025, which is a 74 percent increase over 2020 demands (an increase of 55,285 AF) (UWMP, 2020). The UWMP details that the district has water supply to meet the projected demands over the next 25 years and beyond (UWMP, 2020). The UWMP describes that the district has a projected supply of 161,983 AF in 2020, and a predicted supply of 251,500AFY in 2045.

To provide a conservative estimate of Project water use, a generation rate of 176 gallons per capita per day was used to estimate water demand from the proposed Project (UWMP, 2020). As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would result in 130 additional residents at full occupancy. Based on the district’s 2020 water use target of 176 gallons per capita per day, the 130 additional residents would generate a water demand of 22,880 gallons per day. The Project would limit water demand by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements.

As detailed previously, the district has the water supply to meet the projected demands over the next 25 years and beyond.

In addition, the 2015 UWMP details the available supply, including groundwater, imported water, and recycled water would meet the projected demand during normal, single dry and multiple dry years (UWMP, 2015). Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the proposed Project would be less than significant. 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?
Response:

Less than Significant Impact. As described above, wastewater flows would be conveyed to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The treatment facility has a current daily capacity of 17,900 acre-feet per year (AFY) (UWMP, 2020). EMWD’s 2015 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan uses a wastewater generation rate of 235 gallons per day (GPD) per residential unit. With the anticipated 37 households, the proposed Project would produce a total of 8,695 GPD. 8,695 GPD would equate to approximately 3,618 AFY, which is within the daily capacity of the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Additionally, through the city’s plan check process, the city’s engineering department would confirm that the wastewater generated from the Project would be accommodated within this capacity. Thus, the wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts would be less than significant. 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?
Response:

Less Than Significant Impact. The closest landfill to the vacant Project site is the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, which is located approximately 6 miles northeast from the Project site at 31125 Ironwood Avenue in Moreno Valley. The landfill is permitted to accept 5,000 tons per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2059 (CalRecycle, 2024). In 2024, the landfill had a highest volume of 4,030.41 tons per day. As such, on average, the landfill would have a remaining capacity of 969.59 tons per day. As of July 2024, the landfill has a remaining capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards (CalRecycle, 2024).

The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for single-family residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident per year. As described previously, full occupancy of the proposed Project would generate approximately 130 new residents. Thus, operation of the Project would generate approximately 53.3 tons per solid waste per year; or 1.03 tons per week. However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 0.26 tons per week or 0.04 tons per day, which is within the Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s average remaining capacity of 2,372 tons per day. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
486
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 94 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Response:

No Impact. The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 4.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all State regulations, as ensured through the City’s development Project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 2 – Conservation Element – Section 2.4 – Utilities • Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.7 – Water Quality • Chapter 7 – Conservation Element – Section 7.3 – Solid Waste • Chapter 7 -- Conservation Element – Section 7.5—Water Resources, Figure 6-1 – Water Purveyor Service Area Map

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.7 – Hydrology and Water Quality
- Figure 4.7-1 – Strom Water Flows and Major Drainage Facilities - Figure 4.7-2 – Groundwater Basins
• Section 5.13 – Public Services
- Figure 4.13-1 – Locations of Public Facilities

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls

5. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.21.170 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

6. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 – Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste

7. California Emissions Estimator Model Appendix D Default Data Tables. Table 10.1 Solid Waste Disposal Rates. Accessed: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-

1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

8. CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System. Accessed at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory (Accessed May 12, 2020).

9. CalRecycle Disposal Reporting System: Jurisdiction Tons by Facility. Accessed at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility (Accessed May 12, 2020).

10. Eastern Municipal Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Prepared by RMC. Available:
https://www.emwd.org/what-we-do/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan(Accessed February 14, 2025).

11. Eastern Municipal Water District Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility Fact Sheet. Accessed:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/mvrwrffactsheet.pdf (Accessed May 12, 2020).

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?
Response:

No Impact. The Project site is vacant and within an urbanized residential area of Moreno Valley. The Project site is surrounded by developed and urban areas. The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within a fire hazard zone. The proposed Project area would be accessed from two driveways on Bradshaw Circle. Permitting of these roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area and would provide two routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project area. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City potential impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant. □ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
487
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 95 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Response:

No Impact. As discussed previously, the Project site is developed and within an urbanized residential area of Moreno Valley. The Project site is surrounded by developed and urban areas. The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as determined by the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within a fire hazard zone.

In addition, the Project site is flat and within a flat area. The site is adjacent to roadways and residential developments.

There are no factors on or adjacent to the Project site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the Project.
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?
Response:

No Impact. As described previously, the Project site is developed and within a developed and urban area that is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The Project does not include any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addition, the Project would provide internal streets and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire Code requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, as verified through the City’s permitting process. Therefore, impacts related to infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks would not occur with the proposed Project.
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? Response:

No Impact. As described previously, the Project site is developed and within a developed and urban area that is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the Project site is flat and surrounded by flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would become unstable. In addition, the Project would install onsite drainage that would be conveyed to the existing flood control channel, which is consistent with the existing condition. Therefore, impacts related to flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would not occur from the proposed Project.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted July 11, 2006
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element – Section 6.2- Fire and Emergency Services – 6.2.8—Wildland Urban Interface

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified July 11, 2006 • Section 5.5 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Figure 4.5-2 – Floodplains and High Fire Hazard Areas

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit-plan.pdf • Chapter 5 – Wildland and Urban Fires
• Figure 4-2 – Moreno Valley High Fire Area Map 2016
• Chapter 8 – Landslide
• Figure 7-1 – Moreno Valley Slope Analysis 2016

5. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2009, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/mv-eop-0309.pdf • Threat Assessment 3 – Wildfire

6. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.

Accessed:
https://forestwatch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153 • (Accessed May 12, 2020).
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
488
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 96 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 community, substantially 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?
Response:

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Habitat Assessment describes that the special-status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur on the Project site are covered by compliance with the MSHCP, which requires payment of fees, included as PPP BIO-1. In addition, because the site supports suitable habitat for burrowing owl the MSHCP requires focused surveys pursuant to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the MSHCP area. Hence, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a preconstruction burrowing owl survey to be conducted pursuant to the RCA Survey Instructions prior to start of ground disturbance activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, impacts related to burrowing owl would be less than significant.

In addition, the Habitat Assessment identified suitable habitat and substrate for raptors and migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 is included to require raptor and migratory nesting bird surveys if construction activities begin during the nesting season. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, impacts related to protected bird species would also be reduced to a less than significant level.

As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any buildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

In addition, the Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Paleontological Overview determined that the potential for archaeological resources to be located within the Project site is extremely low to nonexistent. However, the Project area is considered moderately sensitive for paleontological resources. Thus, MM PAL-1 has been included to require paleontological monitoring during all future excavations that would exceed a relative depth of five feet below the present surface. Thus, implementation of MM PAL-1 would reduce potential impacts to important examples of California prehistory to a less than significant level.

As described in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, to avoid potential adverse effects to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-9 have been included to provide for Native American and archaeological monitoring of excavation and grading activities to avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed by Project construction activities.
□ ~ □ □
489
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 97 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)?
Response:

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would redevelop the Project site for single-family residences within a developed area. The Project would provide land uses that are consistent with the adjacent singlefamily residential uses. As described above, all of the potential impacts related to implementation of the Project would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures that are imposed by the City that effectively reduce environmental impacts.

The other cumulative effects of the proposed Project taken into consideration with these other Projects would be limited, because the Project site has already been developed and disturbed and the new uses onsite would not result in substantial change in the urban use of the area. As discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, public services and utility infrastructure are in place to serve the Project and would not result in cumulatively considerable increases in service and utility needs to serve the Project. In addition, the Project would not result in substantial effects to any environmental resource topic, as described throughout this document.

Overall, the proposed Project would develop an area that has been subject to previous grading, and is surrounded by consistent development and roadways. Impacts to environmental resources or issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable; and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the previously identified mitigation measures related to biological resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Response:

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project proposes development of the Project site for singlefamily residential uses. As described previously, the Project site is within an urban area and surrounded by consistent land uses. The Project would not consist of any use or any activities that would result in a substantial negative affect on persons in the vicinity. All resource topics associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no impacts or less-than-significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures related to biological resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources; and existing plans, programs, or policies that are required by the City. Consequently, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. □ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
490
Bradshaw Collection Project Page 98 City of Moreno Valley

DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Lead Agency:

City of Moreno Valley
Community Development Department
Planning Division
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, California 92552
CEQA Document Preparer:

EPD Solutions, Inc.

Konnie Dobreva, JD
Meaghan Truman
Lauren Battle
491
Bradshaw Collection Project 492Page 99 City of Moreno Valley RK19739.2.doc
JN: 1742-2024-03
BRADSHAW COLLECTION (TTM 37858)

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY

IMPACT STUDY
City of Moreno Valley, California
Prepared for:

Mr. Roger Hobbs

RC HOBBS COMPANY
1428 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Prepared by:

RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
1401 Dove Street, Ste. 540
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Bryan Estrada, AICP
Becca Morrison
Claire Stokes
September 22, 2025
um engineering
groun,inc.
traffic engineering & design
transportation planning
parking
acoustical engineering
air quality & ghg
1401 dove street, ste. 540
newport beach, ca 92660
0 (949)474-0809
493 l'b rkengineer.com
Table of Contents
Section Page

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

1.1 Site Location....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Description.............................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Summary of Analysis Results............................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Project Design Features (DF)................................................................................ 1-4

2.0 Air Quality Setting .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Description of Air Pollutants................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 2-4

2.3 Attainment Status .............................................................................................. 2-6

2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) .................................... 2-7

2.4.1 SCAQMD Rules and Regulations.............................................................. 2-8

2.5 Local Climate and Meteorology........................................................................... 2-9

2.6 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................. 2-9

3.0 Global Climate Change Setting ............................................................................. 1

3.1 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................. 1

3.2 GHG Regulatory Setting – State of California.......................................................... 4

3.3 GHG Emissions Inventory ....................................................................................... 4

4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions............................................................. 4-1

4.1 Construction Assumptions.................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Localized Construction Analysis Modeling Parameters ......................................... 4-2

4.3 Operational Assumptions.................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.1 Mobile Source Emissions......................................................................... 4-3

4.3.2 Energy Source Emissions ......................................................................... 4-4

4.3.3 Area Source Emissions............................................................................. 4-5

4.3.4 Other Sources of Operational Emissions .................................................. 4-5 r:,-n engine~ring L.U.U group, me.
rkengineer.com
494
Table of Contents
Section Page

5.0 Significance Thresholds ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds........................................................ 5-1

5.2 Air Quality Localized Significance Thresholds....................................................... 5-1

5.3 GHG Significance Thresholds .............................................................................. 5-2

5.3.1 SCAQMD GHG Interim Significance Thresholds........................................ 5-2

6.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts – Construction.................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Regional Emissions – Construction........................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Localized Emissions – Construction.......................................................... 6-2

6.1.3 Fugitive Dust – Construction.................................................................... 6-1

6.1.4 Odors – Construction .............................................................................. 6-2

6.1.5 Asbestos – Construction.......................................................................... 6-2

6.1.6 Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction .................................................. 6-3

6.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts – Operation......................................................... 6-4

6.2.1 Regional Emissions – Operation............................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Localized Emissions – Operations ............................................................ 6-4

6.2.3 Odors – Operation .................................................................................. 6-5

6.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants – Operations....................................................... 6-5

7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis........................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Construction .......................................................... 7-1

7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Operations............................................................. 7-2

8.0 Energy Impact Analysis....................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Study Objectives................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Utility Providers................................................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Project Energy Consumption ............................................................................... 8-1

8.3.1 Electricity Consumption........................................................................... 8-1 r:,-n engine~ring L.U.U group, me.
rkengineer.com
495
Table of Contents
Section Page

8.3.2 Natural Gas Consumption ....................................................................... 8-2

8.3.3 Petroleum Consumption.......................................................................... 8-3

8.4 Summary of Project Energy Consumption............................................................ 8-8

8.5 Energy Impacts................................................................................................... 8-8

8.5.1 Energy Impact – A................................................................................... 8-8

8.5.2 Energy Impact – B ................................................................................... 8-9 r:,-n engine~ring L.U.U group, me.
rkengineer.com
496
List of Exhibits
Exhibits
Location Map...................................................................................................................... A Site Plan.............................................................................................................................. B r:,-n engine~ring
L.U,,,U group, me.
rkengineer.com
497
List of Tables
Tables
Project Land Use Summary ................................................................................................. 1 CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria ......................................................................................... 2 CEQA GHG Impact Criteria ................................................................................................. 3 CEQA Energy Impact Criteria ............................................................................................... 4 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)..................................................... 5 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................................................. 6 Meteorological Summary .................................................................................................... 7 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 8 Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases.................................................................. 9 GHG Emissions Inventory .................................................................................................... 10 Construction Equipment Assumptions................................................................................. 11 Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled ...................................................................................... 12 Operational Vehicle Mix ..................................................................................................... 13 Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation................................................................. 14 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ......................................................................... 15 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST)................................................................. 16 Regional Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 17 Localized Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 18 Regional Operational Emissions .......................................................................................... 19 Localized Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 20 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 21 r:,-n engine~ring
L.U,,,U group, me.
rkengineer.com
498
List of Tables
Tables
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................. 22 Utility Providers .................................................................................................................. 23 Project Electricity Consumption ........................................................................................... 24 Project Natural Gas Consumption........................................................................................ 25 Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption...................................................... 26 Construction On-Road Trips Energy Consumption................................................................ 27 Operational Trips Energy Consumption – Annual ................................................................ 28 Annual Energy Consumption............................................................................................... 29 r:,-n engine~ring
L.U,,,U group, me.
rkengineer.com
499
List of Appendices
Appendices
Emissions Calculations Outputs (CalEEMod)......................................................................... A EMFAC2021 Vehicle Fuel Consumption Data....................................................................... B r:,-n engine~ring
L.U,,,U group, me.
rkengineer.com
500
1-1

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact study is to determine whether the estimated energy usage and criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions generated from the construction and operation of the TTM 37858 Single Family Residential Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”) would cause significant impacts to air resources.

This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and City of Moreno Valley recommendations for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts.

The study also evaluates the potential impact on energy conservation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation Analysis, and the use of renewable energy sources.

1.1 Site Location
The proposed project is located at the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Bradshaw Circle, in the City of Moreno Valley. The proposed project site is 4.81 gross acres and is currently vacant.

The project site is bounded by residential land uses to the north, vacant land to the east, vacant land and Bradshaw Circle to the west, and Cactus Avenue to the south.

Moreno Valley City CouncilFebruary 17, 2026

Moreno Valley City Council
February 17, 2026