Moreno Valley commission backs stronger logistics‑facility rules, urges council review

The Moreno Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously June 25 to forward a draft ordinance to the City Council that would impose new development and operational standards on logistics‑use facilities, including expanded buffers, cooling and paving standards, equipment electrification and a new abatement fund.

Reene Kennedy, principal planner, said staff drafted the measure in negotiation with the California Attorney General’s Office and that it goes beyond state minimums in several respects. "The proposed staff‑recommended ordinance exceeds the mandatory basic requirements of Assembly Bill 98 and Senate Bill 415," Kennedy said, noting the city’s version requires a 1,000‑foot buffer to sensitive receptors versus 900 feet under state law.

City Attorney Steve Kintania walked commissioners through dozens of revisions suggested after a public workshop. He read the location provision into the record: "No logistics facility developed under our 2024 general plan update shall be located within a thousand feet from any sensitive receptor," measured property‑line to property‑line, he said.

Key provisions discussed and endorsed by the commission and staff include: - Buffer and siting: a 1,000‑foot minimum buffer from sensitive receptors measured from property line to property line, and building setbacks that widen to 50 feet where truck access occurs. - Building and surface reflectance: requirements for cool roofs (minimum solar‑reflective performance tied to the California Energy Code; commissioners agreed to a minimum solar‑reflective index of at least 78) and "cool concrete" for pavement with a suggested reflectance index of at least 29 to reduce heat‑island effects. - Equipment and operations: a prohibition on routine diesel‑generator use, limited only to emergencies as determined by the city; requirements for zero‑emission yard vehicles and forklifts by Jan. 1, 2028; and auxiliary power hookups at every loading dock so drivers need not run idling engines. - Worker and traffic measures: required training programs every three years and transit/truck‑route signage, with multilingual and conspicuity requirements to aid enforcement. - Abatement fund: a fee set at $1,500 per estimated daily truck trip to fund HVAC and filtration upgrades at the nearest sensitive receptors; the fee would be indexed annually to the local consumer price index.

Public comment reflected broad community engagement. "Air pollution in the Inland Empire kills 808 people each year," Asma Gonzalez, an environmental advocate, told the commission while citing regional reports; advocates urged strict enforcement and a requirement that residents not be required to front abatement costs. Several speakers pushed the commission to include building volume or cubic‑foot limits to prevent developers from adding capacity by increasing a building’s height.

Evan Brooke, a local advocate, pressed the city to fund active monitoring rather than rely on a complaint‑driven enforcement approach: "Monitoring depends on reports from residents. I don't believe that this system can adequately monitor violations of this ordinance," he said.

Kintania told the commission the draft incorporates community suggestions and various clarifying edits, but said administrative procedures for the abatement fund and enforcement would be developed subsequently. Commissioners voted 5–0 to recommend the ordinance, with the edited provisions read into the record for council consideration.

Next steps: the commission’s action is a recommendation; City Council will hold a noticed public hearing before taking final action. If the council approves the ordinance, staff will return with implementation procedures for the abatement fund and enforcement protocols.