Moreno Valley council certifies revised 2024 General Plan EIR after Attorney General negotiations

The Moreno Valley City Council on April 21 approved a revised Program Environmental Impact Report and adopted the 2024 General Plan update and Climate Action Plan after settling mitigation language with the California Attorney General’s office.

Community Development Director Angelica Frasto Lupo told the council the revised documents update the EIR baseline to 2024 and add analyses and mitigations on air quality, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions identified by the court’s prior ruling. Kimley Horn consultant Heidi Roose summarized the revisions as targeted edits focused on the four issues the court found deficient in the original 2021 EIR.

The AR office urged stronger mitigation in October and November 2025 and worked with city staff through settlement negotiations. City Clerk Patty Rodriguez read the AG office letter from Deputy Attorney General Jessica Durnney noting that “the MMRP contains mitigation measures that satisfy the concerns we expressed” but reminding the city that AB 98 requires additional circulation/truck‑routing work.

“The revised final EIR contains the analysis of the effects of the 2024 general plan update, the associated zoning text amendments, the 2024 Climate Action Plan and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program,” Heidi Roose said during the presentation.

Consultant Emily Saul described the Climate Action Plan as setting 2030 and 2045 greenhouse‑gas targets and listing 16 measures — from EV charging expansion to bikeways and tree canopy — intended to align with state climate goals. Staff said the CAP now includes a funding strategy and is designed to be used to tier and streamline CEQA review for future developments.

City Attorney Steve Kintania and staff also summarized a mitigation matrix produced during negotiations with the AG’s office; it crosswalks AG requests, staff proposals and final recommended MMRP language. Provisions negotiated with the AG include limits on truck idling, higher buffer and landscape standards near logistics uses, electrification requirements for on‑site yard equipment, and funding concepts such as an air‑filtration abatement fund to subsidize filtration for existing residents near new large logistics facilities.

The AG’s letter and the city attorney’s presentation made clear that the AG remained concerned about the circulation element and truck‑routing provisions mandated by AB 98; staff said it will return with circulation/truck‑route ordinances and an air‑quality ordinance for public hearings.

Public comment was extensive and largely critical: more than 20 speakers urged broader recirculation, sharper protections for environmental justice neighborhoods, and even moratoria or bans on additional warehouses and truck routes. Many asked for longer public review time and a community advisory committee to monitor implementation. Residents repeatedly raised health concerns tied to diesel pollution and the cumulative effects of logistics growth.

Councilmembers repeatedly stressed that the revisions respond to the court’s narrow scope on environmental analysis (baseline, air quality, GHGs, energy use) and that changing the General Plan land use map now would force a recertification of the housing element and risk loss of the city’s prohousing designation. After deliberation, the council approved staff’s recommendation to certify the revised EIR and adopt the General Plan update and CAP, and directed staff to move forward with the next public hearings on the truck‑route and mitigation ordinances. The motion carried unanimously.

What happens next: staff will publish the MMRP and ordinance drafts for roughly 40 days of public review before returning to the Planning Commission and City Council with the truck‑route ordinance and a package of air‑quality mitigation measures the AG helped negotiate. The staff timetable projects the circulation element to go to the Planning Commission in May and to council in June.