Calimesa City Council
September 21, 2026

In Response 15-2, Dudek concedes that constructing this roadway will directly cause the **"subsequent removal of lawns, landscaping, fencing, and/or mailboxes"** along our frontages.

Paving the public Right-of-Way up to existing residential property lines eliminates the essential open-space setback buffer intended by the City's 30-foot residential setback standards, placing heavy traffic directly at our doorsteps.
### 4. Significant, Unmitigated Noise Impacts (Response 15-2 & Response 15-3) Dudek’s own response confirms that project traffic will generate a **9.7 dBA noise increase** along County Line Road Segment 1, which exceeds the City’s threshold of significance. The sole proposed mitigation—rubberized asphalt (MM-NOI-3)—is technically incapable of mitigating a 9.7 dBA surge down to insignificance, leaving existing residents with a substantial, unmitigated noise burden.
### 5. Omission of Localized Driveway Ingress/Egress Safety Despite repeated requests, the Final SEIR contains no empirical engineering analysis evaluating how rural residential property owners can safely execute backing maneuvers with horse trailers, RVs, and personal vehicles into driveways against 14,000 daily vehicle trips. Dismissing this severe hazard under broad, generic city design thresholds fails CEQA's mandate to evaluate projectspecific design hazards. ### 6. Tainted Recommendation Due to Un-Cured *Ex Parte* Contacts At the August 10, 2026 public hearing, the Planning Commission Chair and another commissioner admitted on the record to having private, off-the-record phone conversations with applicant Bill Shopoff. However, neither commissioner disclosed the timing, content, promises, or substance of those discussions. Under California law (*Cochell v. City of Glendale*), acknowledging a conversation without disclosing its substance violates procedural due process and creates a secret record, fatally compromising the validity of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. ### Conclusion & Requested Action

Because the Final SEIR relies on an unstable project description, concealed basic alignment maps from the draft review period, confirms unmitigated noise and property destruction, and rests upon a procedurally defective recommendation, it cannot legally be certified.

I urge the City Council to **deny certification of the Final SEIR and reject Amendment 2** until a proper Supplemental EIR with full physical mapping, localized safety analyses, and transparent public review is completed.

Sincerely,
Clarence Hoefer
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, Ca 92320
951-377-1275

MEMORANDUM / CRITICAL LIABILITIES & RED FLAGS BRIEFING
TO: City Council Members
FROM: West County Line Road Impacted Landowners & Coalition DATE: August 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Fatal SEIR Defects, Life-Safety Evacuation Threats, and CEQA Recirculation Mandate: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 (SCH No. 2004071045)

1. 38-Foot Road Was Never Evaluated in the Traffic Study ● The Backroom Redesign: The circulated Draft SEIR evaluated an engineered 48-foot curb-to-curb roadway with dedicated 6-foot bike lanes. Likely to avoid costly land acquisitions within the existing 60-foot Right-of-Way (ROW), the City and applicant quietly shrunk the roadway to 38 feet curb-to-curb (14-foot shared vehicle/bike lanes) inside Exhibit E of the Development Agreement.
● The Traffic Study Mismatch: The Traffic Analysis in Appendix J-2 did not model a 38- foot shared roadway. This is a CEQA violation.
● Developer Confusion at the Podium at the Planning Commission meeting: Applicant Bill Shopoff publicly represented that the street would be 36 feet curb-to-curb, which Dudek now concedes on paper (Response 15-1 to my submitted questions after the planning commission meeting) was "made in error".

2. Physical Alignment Concealed from Public Review (Mandatory Recirculation Issue) ● Withheld Layout Graphics: Dudek admitted in writing (Response 15-4) that the graphic showing the physical alignment, curb lines, and sidewalk placement "was not available at the time of the Draft SEIR" and was only provided on page 146 of the August 10 Planning Commission agenda packet.
● Deprivation of Public Participation: Withholding where the road physically sits relative to private parcel lines until the night of the Planning Commission meeting violates CEQA's fundamental requirement for informed public review.

3. Life-Safety & Wildfire Evacuation Traps (CEQA Appendix G Threshold Violations) ● The SB 743 Fallacy vs. Life Safety: While everyday driver delay is measured in VMT, emergency evacuation delay remains a mandatory, enforceable CEQA threshold under Appendix G (Section XX, Wildfire & Section XVII, Emergency Access). Funneling over 14,000 daily project vehicles and heavy logistics trucks into proposed roundabouts creates severe queue-spillback that will paralyze the only western evacuation route for rural residents attempting to flee wildfires with livestock and horse trailers. ● Catastrophic Bottleneck During Interchange Construction: The SEIR contains zero analysis evaluating cumulative evacuation risks during the multi-year construction phase when the I-10 / County Line Road interchange is actively torn up for bridge and roundabout "upgrades". Constricting the freeway interchange during construction while

simultaneously loading project and warehouse traffic onto West County Line Road creates an inescapable life-safety trap with zero detour capacity. ● Obstruction of First Responders: Squeezing West County Line Road down to a 38-foot cross-section (with a narrow 10-foot painted center turn lane and zero dedicated emergency pullouts) prevents incoming CAL FIRE engines and ambulances from bypassing gridlocked evacuees attempting to reach the I-10.

4. Severe Physical Encroachment at 867 W. County Line Road & Destruction of Setbacks ● Direct Structural Encroachment (867 W. County Line Rd): The existing residential structure at 867 W. County Line Road sits approximately 10 feet from the current roadway edge, and the majority of this parcel is situated directly within the designated 80-foot ROW alignment. Expanding this roadway pushes traffic, curb, sidewalk, and heavy diesel trucks directly against the physical walls of this home if not inside the home depending on where the actual road placement will be.
● Unstudied Acquisition / Eminent Domain: The SEIR contains zero disclosure, zero economic or displacement analysis, and zero mitigation regarding the necessity to purchase, condemn, or demolish this home or mitigate the extreme structural, vibration, and safety hazards imposed upon it.
● Complete Elimination of Municipal Setbacks: While the City's zoning code mandates a 30-foot residential setback standard, this project completely eliminates setbacks on existing homes. Paving the public Right-of-Way up to property lines and front porches deprives residents of any functional safety or noise buffer. ● Admitted Property Destruction: Dudek explicitly conceded in Response 15-2 that project construction will cause the "subsequent removal of lawns, landscaping, fencing, and/or mailboxes" along residential frontages. (But yet the public has still not been shown where the actual road placement will be.)

5. Omission of Localized Driveway Ingress/Egress Hazards & Unreasonable Delay ● Severe Driveway Exit Wait Times & Access Impairment: Residents who have lived on this rural corridor for over 35 years face unstudied, indefinite delays simply attempting to pull out of their own driveways into continuous streams of 14,000+ daily vehicles and heavy logistics trucks.
● The "Delay" Misconception & Legal Exposure: While CEQA under SB 743 shifted generic commuter intersection delay to VMT, the City cannot rely on SB 743 to ignore the complete deprivation of reasonable driveway egress and ingress. Creating a physical condition where rural residents are essentially trapped inside their private properties with no safe gap in traffic is an actionable design defect, a direct interference with established property access rights, and grounds for legal challenge against the City's approval.
● Rural Backing Maneuvers Ignored: West County Line Road is a rural residential corridor where residents maneuver horse trailers, RVs, and boats into driveways. The SEIR

contains zero empirical engineering analysis evaluating the physical safety of backing maneuvers across active travel lanes competing with 14,000 daily vehicles.

6. Flawed Cumulative Baseline & Warehouse Gridlock
● Missing 2025 Warehouse Baseline: The traffic baseline failed to field-measure heavy truck traffic from the newly completed 2025 warehouse adjacent to the I-10 and County Line Road ramps.
● I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing: Squeezing project trips into the corridor without realistic cumulative modeling creates severe queuing hazards spilling onto the I-10 freeway offramps.

7. Substantial Noise Impacts Unmitigated (Response 15-2) ● Significant Impact Acknowledged: Dudek confirmed that project traffic causes a 9.7 dBA CNEL noise increase along County Line Road (Segment 1), exceeding the City's significance threshold.
● Ineffective Mitigation (MM-NOI-3): Relying solely on rubberized asphalt achieves only a 2–3 dBA reduction, leaving existing residents with a substantial, legally unmitigated permanent noise impact.

8. Procedural Due Process Defect & CPRA Default
● Defective Ex Parte Disclosures: At the August 10 hearing, the Commission Chair and another commissioner admitted to private phone calls with applicant Bill Shopoff but failed to disclose the substance, promises, or representations made. Under Cochell v.

City of Glendale, this creates an unlawful "secret record". ● Statutory Default: Formal Public Records Act requests served on August 12, 2026, remain unanswered past the 10-day statutory deadline without production of responsive logs or notes. It was hand delivered to the Clerk again on Monday 8/24/26.

9. Physical Right-of-Way Inconsistencies & Fencing at 867 W. County Line Road ● Selective Infrastructure Installation: Following the applicant's acquisition of the Mesa Verde property, City staff and surveyors entered the parcel at 867 W. County Line Road to establish access. Subsequently, an approximately 12-foot-tall gate and chain-link fence were erected on the western portion of the parcel extending to the Mesa Verde boundary to establish an 80-foot public Right-of-Way.
● Applicant-Funded Improvements on Non-Project Land: Records and prior statements confirm that the applicant funded this fencing and gate infrastructure on land outside the applicant's property boundaries to secure access. ● Unaddressed Physical Conflicts: If the City intended to establish a continuous 80-foot Right-of-Way along this corridor, the alignment could not proceed eastward across the remainder of the parcel without passing directly through the existing residential structure at 867 W. County Line Road.
● Omission from the Environmental Review: The SEIR contains zero analysis of the

physical alignment, structural acquisition, or property impacts associated with this corridor configuration, leaving critical right-of-way and access issues unstudied and unresolved.

Conclusion & Requested City Council Action:

We, the long-term residents and landowners of West County Line Road, have brought forward concrete, fact-based, and legally substantive defects that were completely ignored and never evaluated in the SEIR. Rather than conducting the required environmental studies, City staff and the applicant have continually attempted to sweep these critical roadway, safety, setback, physical displacement (such as at 867 W. County Line Rd), and access failures under the rug through contradictory verbal statements and eleventh-hour changes hidden in Development Agreement exhibits.

The City Council cannot legally or ethically certify an environmental document built on evasions and unstudied hazards. We urge the City Council to remand the project back to Planning Staff with strict instructions to recirculate a revised SEIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 that includes full physical alignment maps, models the true 38-foot shared-lane configuration, evaluates structural impacts/acquisitions on affected parcels, addresses wildfire evacuation during interchange construction, and thoroughly studies localized driveway safety and established residential access rights.

Sidenote: Interchange Realities & Construction Overlap
The I-10 interchange improvements are managed by Caltrans on their own independent timeline, likely spanning years. At the Planning Commission meeting, representations made regarding "improvements" to the interchanges at County Line and Sandalwood gave the impression that the developer would be directly controlling and constructing these improvements. While the developer may have to contribute financially, they are not performing the work or controlling Caltrans' construction schedule.

As a result, current residents will be forced to absorb warehouse truck traffic clogging intersections alongside 14,000 daily project vehicles, compounded by active roundabout construction and eventual freeway interchange bridge work. Squeezing this volume into an unmodeled 38-foot cross-section without viable detour alternatives creates severe, unmitigated daily gridlock and life-safety hazards that the SEIR has completely failed to address.

DATE: September 10, 2026
TO:

City of Calimesa City Attorney’s Office
City Manager, City of Calimesa
Kelly Lucia, Community Development Director
Office of the City Clerk
908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320
(Delivered via Email and In Person / Date-Stamped)
FROM:

C.W. Hoefer
West County Line Road Impacted Landowners & Coalition
SUBJECT: PRE-LITIGATION NOTICE OF FORMAL CEQA DEFECTS, STATUTORY CPRA

DEFAULT, AND EXPOSURE TO MANDATORY WRIT RELIEF
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 / Final SEIR (SCH No. 2004071045) City Council Hearing Date: September 21, 2026
Dear City Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Leadership:

This letter serves as formal notice to the City of Calimesa administrative leadership that certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) and approving Amendment 2 in its current posture will expose the City to immediate legal challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California public records statutes.

The affected residents along West County Line Road have repeatedly submitted substantive, verifiable evidence of critical engineering discrepancies and unanalyzed life-safety hazards.

Rather than conducting the environmental review mandated by state law, City staff and environmental consultant Dudek have generated evasive responses that contain fatal admissions of non-compliance:

1. Acknowledged Failure to Model the Actual Roadway Configuration (CEQA § 15088.5) In Response 15-1, Dudek conceded in writing that the circulated Draft SEIR evaluated a 48- foot curb-to-curb road with dedicated bike lanes, but the City and applicant subsequently substituted an uncirculated 38-foot cross-section in Exhibit E of the Development Agreement. Squeezing 14,000+ daily vehicles and heavy logistics trucks into a 38-foot shared roadway was never modeled in Appendix J-2. Under County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, moving forward on an unstudied roadway configuration violates CEQA’s core stable project description mandate.

2. Withholding Physical Alignment Maps from Public Review Dudek admitted in Response 15-4 that the graphic detailing the physical alignment, curb boundaries, and Right-of-Way placement "was not available at the time of the Draft SEIR" and was only revealed on page 146 of the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission agenda packet. Withholding basic layout plans from the public comment period deprives affected landowners of statutory due process and renders the environmental review legally defective.

3. Direct Structural Encroachment and Omission of Takings Analysis (867 W. County Line Rd) The existing residential home at 867 W. County Line Road sits approximately 10 feet from the pavement and directly within the 80-foot Right-of-Way alignment. The SEIR completely omits any evaluation, economic analysis, or mitigation concerning the physical displacement, structural safety, vibration hazards, or acquisition/eminent domain requirements for this property.

4. Statutory Default on Public Records Act Disclosures On August 12, 2026 (and handdelivered on August 24, 2026), formal CPRA requests were served regarding undisclosed ex parte phone communications between the applicant and Planning Commissioners. The 10-day statutory determination period under Government Code § 7922.535 expired weeks ago without a response or lawful extension. Concealing developer communications while pushing for project certification violates procedural due process and taints the administrative record (Cochell v. City of Glendale).

Notice of Remedial Demand:

We are not asking the City to cancel the project; we are formally requesting that City leadership fulfill its statutory duty to the public and the City Council. We urge the City Attorney and City Manager to advise the City Council to deny certification of the SEIR on September 21, 2026, and remand the matter to staff for recirculation under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.

If the City elects to ramrod this defective document through, it does so knowing that the administrative record is populated with written admissions that leave the approval indefensible in Superior Court, exposing the City to court-ordered decertification and statutory attorney fee awards under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

Respectfully,
C.W. Hoefer
West County Line Road Coalition

Shared with Planning Commission via email on 08/03/2026

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
31 July 2026
Planning Commission
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Delivered via email to: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Supplemental Comments on Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004071045) Commissioners:

Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) has previously submitted comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the proposed Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project by way of a Comment Letter dated 21 August 2025, which documented systematic deficiencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a wholesale failure to analyze environmental justice impacts despite the Project's location in a heavily pollution-burdened census tract, an incomplete project description omitting floor plans, detailed elevations, and a conceptual grading plan, use of an energy modeling platform not approved by the California Energy Commission for Title 24 compliance demonstrations, a General Plan and zoning consistency analysis that conflates state planning law with CEQA's independent disclosure obligations, an understated growth-inducement analysis for the Project's 8,509 projected jobs, a greenhouse gas and air quality mitigation program that rejects feasible measures as categorically infeasible without project-specific analysis, and a Vehicle Miles Traveled and transportation analysis that dismisses multiple failing intersections while deferring the Project's own RTP/SCS inconsistency finding to a post-approval conformity study.

GSEJA also provided technical review comments prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) on the Project's air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas analyses, and a biological resources critique prepared by Shawn Smallwood, PhD, addressing survey adequacy, special-status species impacts, and the Project's effect on regional wildlife connectivity through MSHCP Constrained Linkage 23.

The City of Calimesa has since published the Final SEIR containing responses to GSEJA's comments (Responses O5-1 through O5-148). GSEJA has reviewed those responses and submits this Supplemental Comment Letter to reiterate its opposition to the Project and to place on record

2 that the City's responses do not adequately resolve the deficiencies identified in GSEJA's prior submissions. The City's responses largely fail to constitute the good-faith, reasoned analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.

In several instances, the responses substitute legal argument regarding the scope of CEQA's applicability for substantive engagement with GSEJA's underlying technical and factual concerns, decline to meaningfully rebut SWAPE's and Dr. Smallwood's findings, and defer resolution of significant issues (including a Project-specific VMT conformity determination and multiple protocol-level biological surveys) to post-approval processes in a manner inconsistent with CEQA's informational mandate.

The proposed Project would amend the existing Mesa Verde Specific Plan to allow up to 4.44M ft2 of Business Park development (industrial, logistics, office, and/or educational uses not currently permitted under the existing Specific Plan), up to 300,000 ft2 of commercial building area, and 3,650 residential units on a roughly 1,493-acre site west of Interstate 10, between Sandalwood Drive and County Line Road. This is not a modest infill amendment; it introduces an entirely new category of industrial land use into a Specific Plan area that has never permitted it, at a site the City's own Final SEIR acknowledges will generate employment growth exceeding adopted SCAG projections. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Project's census tract (6065043823) ranks in the 99th percentile for ozone burden, the 80th percentile for PM2.5 burden, the 79th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts, the 53rd percentile for solid waste facility impacts, and the 51st percentile for traffic impacts—all factors attributable in substantial part to heavy truck activity. The surrounding community is 42% Hispanic, with 51% of residents over age 25 lacking a high school diploma and the tract ranking in the 84th percentile for cardiovascular disease incidence. Rather than grappling with this burden, the City's responses dismiss GSEJA's environmental justice concerns on the basis that no CalEPA SB 535 disadvantaged-community designation applies and that CEQA contains no environmentaljustice-specific threshold. This is not adequate, and the Planning Commission should not accept it as such.

3 I. Environmental Justice
Response O5-4 asserts that because CalEPA has not designated an SB 535 disadvantaged community at the Project site, and because neither the City, SCAQMD, nor the CEQA Guidelines maintain an environmental-justice-specific significance threshold, no further environmental justice analysis is required. This response misreads CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c), which independently requires that
"economic, social, and particularly housing factors...be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment."
The absence of an SB 535 designation does not excuse the City from considering the compounding effect of poverty, low educational attainment, and existing 80th-to-99th-percentile pollution burdens when evaluating whether the Project's admittedly significant and unavoidable air quality impacts are adequately disclosed and mitigated. A census tract need not carry a formal disadvantaged-community label for CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4)'s substantial-adverseeffect-on-human-beings threshold to apply. The City's responses do not analyze the disproportionate burden this Project imposes on this specific community, nor do they identify mitigation calibrated to that vulnerability. The record does not support treating this issue as resolved.

II. Project Description and Grading Disclosure
Response O5-3 defends the absence of a detailed grading plan, floor plans, and detailed elevations on the ground that the SEIR is a "programmatic document" intended to evaluate impacts "at a program or conceptual level," with detailed grading and site plans to follow at project-level review. The response further asserts that the Project's total earthwork quantity of

33.5M yd3 is disclosed on the master tentative tract map (Figure 3-11A). Disclosure of an aggregate cubic-yardage figure on a tract map sheet, without any accompanying grading narrative, phased earthwork breakdown, or explanation of how that figure was derived, does not provide the public or decision-makers a meaningful basis to verify the Project's constructionPage 759 of 1216 4 phase impacts to air quality, biological resources, and geology, all of which are directly dependent on the scope and phasing of grading activity. CEQA does not permit an agency to defer analysis of a presently identifiable impact to a future discretionary stage. (Sundstrom v.

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The programmatic nature of a Specific Plan EIR does not exempt the document from CEQA Guidelines Section 15121's requirement of adequate, good-faith disclosure at the program level itself.

III. Energy Analysis and Title 24 Compliance
Response O5-9 defends the SEIR's use of CalEEMod to model both air quality and energy impacts, arguing CalEEMod is sanctioned by SCAQMD as a "uniform platform" and that the three CEC-approved software packages (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) model only building energy consumption, whereas CalEEMod also captures mobile-source and constructionequipment energy demand. This response does not resolve the underlying deficiency: the California Energy Commission has designated CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE (not CalEEMod) as the approved compliance software for demonstrating consistency with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards under Title 24. That CalEEMod additionally captures mobile-source energy demand does not establish that it is an adequate substitute for CECapproved software when the SEIR's own significance threshold turns on consistency with "a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency" (i.e., Title 24 itself). The public and decision-makers are entitled to know, before Project approval, whether the Project satisfies the state's energy efficiency standard using the tool the state has designated for that purpose, not a substitute tool the City has found convenient.

IV. Land Use and General Plan Consistency
Response O5-12 relies on Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704 for the proposition that a project need not achieve "perfect conformity" with every General Plan policy to be found consistent and further asserts that General Plan consistency is a planning and zoning law question separate from CEQA. Both propositions are legally accurate in isolation, but neither excuses the City from disclosing and analyzing, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, whether the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise conflict with the specific General Plan goals and policies adopted to avoid or mitigate those same impacts. The City's own Table

4.10-1 revisions (adding discussion of Goal SUS-1 and Policies LU-15, LU-20, and AQ-18 only after GSEJA's comment identified the gap) confirm that the analysis as originally circulated was incomplete. An after-the-fact table revision responding to a comment is not equivalent to the informed public review CEQA requires before the close of the comment period.

V. Population, Housing, and Growth Inducement
Response O5-11 concedes that the Project's Business Park uses were "not previously considered in the prior approvals" and would generate approximately 8,509 jobs—employment growth the response itself acknowledges will cause the Project to "conflict with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan" and result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts due to exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Rather than confronting this admission, Response O5-28

5 reframes the comparison at the county level, asserting that Project-plus-cumulative employment growth "would not exceed regional SCAG projections" for Riverside County as a whole. A finding that county-wide growth remains within regional projections does not answer the narrower, Project-specific question of whether an unplanned, previously unanticipated industrial land use at this site induces substantial unplanned growth in Calimesa itself, as required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The City cannot rely on a regional projection to launder a Cityspecific, previously unplanned change in land use intensity.

VI. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Responses O5-52 through O5-65 reject nearly all of SWAPE's proposed supplemental mitigation measures, including zero-emission truck requirements, transport refrigeration unit electrification, and carbon offsets—as infeasible, citing grid capacity constraints, cost differentials between diesel and electric trucks, and the absence of a CARB-approved offset mechanism free of legal challenge. These are generic, industry-wide infeasibility arguments untethered to any Projectspecific analysis of what incremental measures (phased requirements tied to technologyavailability triggers, for example) might be achievable at this site and this build-out horizon (extending, per the Draft SEIR's own phasing, well past 2035). Response O5-63's rejection of offsets further acknowledges that more than 86% of the Project's emissions are already subject to the state Cap-and-Trade program, yet the response does not explain how the remaining, nonCap-and-Trade-covered emissions will be reduced to the extent feasible, as CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 requires. A blanket determination that no additional measure is feasible, unsupported by Project-specific quantification of what each rejected measure would have achieved, does not constitute the "good faith effort at full disclosure" CEQA demands. The Project's air quality and GHG impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and the record does not establish that all feasible mitigation has in fact been adopted.

VII. VMT, Transportation, and RTP/SCS Consistency
Response O5-17 relies on Senate Bill 743 to conclude that Level of Service deficiencies (including LOS F conditions at multiple I-10 ramp and Sandalwood Drive intersections identified in Appendix J-2) no longer constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA and therefore require no mitigation. GSEJA does not dispute that automobile delay alone is no longer a CEQA threshold. However, Response O5-32 separately concedes that "the Project would not be consistent with RTP/SCS and a cumulative analysis to evaluate the Project's effect on VMT is required," and Response O5-18 confirms that improvements at the I-10 interchange depend on a Caltrans Project Study Report that "has not yet been prepared" and on infrastructure "not under the jurisdiction of the City of Calimesa." In place of resolving this inconsistency now, the City has adopted MM-TRA-1, which defers preparation of a Trip Generation and VMT Conformity Analysis until prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the Business Park uses.

Deferring the very analysis that determines whether the Project's VMT impact is significant to a post-approval stage, particularly where the underlying regional infrastructure improvements remain unbuilt and outside the City's control, is impermissible deferral of environmental analysis under Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra. A finding of less-than-significant VMT impact cannot rest on a study that does not yet exist.

6 VIII. Biological Resources
Response O5-89 defends the Project's reliance on CNDDB database searches supplemented by Dudek's field surveys and dismisses Dr. Smallwood's citizen-science corroboration (eBird, iNaturalist) as unreliable. Dr. Smallwood's underlying field observations, however, were not citizen-science data points—they were his own direct perimeter surveys documenting species presence, offered to corroborate and supplement, not substitute for, on-site conditions. Rejecting that corroborating evidence solely because it is packaged alongside citizen-science records does not constitute substantial evidence rebutting the observations themselves.

Separately, and more significantly, the original comment letter identified that MM-BIO-6 would protect only 64.2 acres of MSHCP Constrained Linkage 23 against the destruction of approximately 336 acres of what currently exists as that Linkage—a measure the Draft SEIR characterizes as avoidance but which, on these numbers, is a minimization measure at best, and one lacking any commitment to monitor the Project's actual effect on wildlife movement through the Linkage before, during, and after construction. None of the City's responses in the O5-99 through O5-129 range address this specific disproportion or commit to the pre/during/postconstruction wildlife movement monitoring program (e.g., event-triggered cameras, thermal imaging, visual-scan surveys) that would allow the City to verify whether the retained fragment of Linkage 23 in fact continues to function as a movement corridor.

Consistency with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly process, as confirmed by the Regional Conservation Authority's March 2025 Joint Project Review findings, establishes procedural compliance with the MSHCP—it does not independently establish that the Project's disproportionate reduction of Linkage 23 avoids a significant impact to wildlife movement under CEQA.

Finally, the City's negative findings for Stephens' kangaroo rat and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Response O5-83) rest on trapping surveys conducted in 1999, 2002, and 2004, more than two decades before the current Final SEIR's January 2026 publication date, and conducted under a

7 substantially different project footprint than the current Amendment 2 proposal. Reliance on survey data of this vintage as the sole basis for a current no-impact conclusion is difficult to reconcile with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)'s requirement that the environmental baseline reflect conditions as they exist at the time environmental review is commenced.

IX. Alternatives Analysis
Response O5-47 rejects an alternative emphasizing affordable, mixed-use, and exclusively localserving commercial development on the ground that it would not achieve Project Objective 2 (establishment of new Business Park uses). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 does not require that every alternative achieve every Project objective; it requires that the range of alternatives, taken together, be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the Project's significant effects while feasibly attaining most of the Project's basic objectives. Neither the No Project Alternative (the already-approved 2017 Specific Plan) nor any other alternative evaluated in the Draft SEIR is shown to reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts to a less-than-significant level. An alternatives analysis that excludes any option capable of achieving that reduction does not satisfy the "rule of reason" the Guidelines describe.

X. Recirculation
The corrections and additions the City has made in response to GSEJA's comments (including revisions to Table 4.10-1's General Plan consistency findings and the General Plan Amendment's scope itself (Response O5-12)), together with the unresolved deficiencies identified above regarding VMT conformity, energy compliance methodology, and biological mitigation adequacy, constitute the kind of substantive, unresolved gaps that CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is intended to address. Recirculation is warranted so that the public may review a complete analysis before the Planning Commission acts.

XI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to decline to certify the Final SEIR and to deny approval of the proposed Project entitlements as currently structured. Across environmental justice, project description, energy modeling, land use consistency, growth inducement, air quality and GHG mitigation, transportation, biological resources, and alternatives, the City's responses substitute legal argument for substantive rebuttal, defer critical determinations (including the Project's own VMT conformity finding) to post-approval processes, and reject feasible mitigation on the basis of generic infeasibility arguments rather than Project-specific analysis.

If this Project proceeds as proposed, it will introduce an entirely new category of industrial land use, 8,509 new jobs, and significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts into a community already ranking in the 99th percentile for ozone burden and the 80th percentile for PM2.5 burden, without the deferred VMT conformity analysis in hand, without a complete accounting of the Project's effect on regional wildlife connectivity through Linkage 23, and without the environmental justice analysis that CEQA's disclosure mandate requires.

8 The Planning Commission has both the authority and the obligation to demand a legally adequate environmental review before approving a project of this scale and consequence.

Onwards.

Steven Piepkorn
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
765 N Main Street, Suite 151
Corona, CA 92880
+1 951 279 4697

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10250 CONSTELLATION BOULEVARD
SUITE 2300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(213) 572-0400
August 21, 2025
Selenne Sevilla Via Email to:

Senior Planner [email protected]
City of Calimesa - Planning Division
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Subject: Comments on Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 EIR (SCH NO. 2004071045)
Dear Ms. Sevilla,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The Project would revise the existing adopted Mesa Verde Specific Plan (MVSP) to allow for the development of up to 4.44 million square feet of building area with the Business Park zone (allowing for industrial, logistics, office, and/or educational uses), while these types of uses are not currently permitted under the existing MVSP. The project would also allow up to 300,000 square feet of commercial building area within the Commercial and Mixed Use zones, which is an increased quantity of commercial development in comparison to the adopted MVSP. The project would permit the development of a maximum of 3,650 residential units (which is the same unit count as in the current Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 1), including a mix of single‐family detached, single‐family attached, and multi‐family units. The projected number of

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

units within each of the residential zones include: 790 units of High Residential; 594 units of Medium High; 1,450 units of Medium; 677 units of Low Medium; and 139 units of Low. The Project would permit up to 4.44 million square feet of building area with the Business Park zone (allowing for industrial, logistics, office, and/or educational uses), up to 300,000 square feet of commercial building area within the Commercial and Mixed Use zones, two school sites, open space and public/private parks, utility infrastructure, and roadways. An internal network of trails would connect the Project’s land uses and parks.

The following discretionary actions are required to accommodate the proposed project:

1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-01. GPA 23-01 proposes to change the following in the General Plan: (a) change Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (b) change Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (3) change Figure OSPR-1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (4) change Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; and (5) update references to the “Mesa Verde Estates” Specific Plan to reflect the Specific Plan Amendment.

2. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 23-01. SPA No. 23-01 proposes to replace the existing approved 2017 MVSP with the new MVSP as proposed by the project.

3. Zone Change (ZC) 23-01. ZC No. 23-01 proposesto modify the the previously approved zones in the 2017 MVSP with the new MVSP zones as proposed by the project. The zoning changes include redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public Works zone districts; creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park Zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly.

4. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 33931. TTM No. 33931 provides for the subdivision of property into 57 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress, for finance and conveyance purposes

5. Development Agreement Amendment No. 1. The Development Agreement Amendment between the City and the Applicant specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties.

3.0 Project Description
The EIR does not include a floor plan, detailed elevations, or a detailed conceptual grading plan.

The basic components of a Planning Application include a detailed site plan, floor plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, and detailed elevations. The grading plans have been edited for

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

public review, meaning that the plans are not provided in their wholly accurate form and information has been removed. Notably, the grading plans exclude the earthwork quantity notes.

The EIR states that, “The conceptual mass grading plan would require approximately 33,500,000 cubic yards of cut and fill on the Project site. Each phase is estimated based on the current tentative map and grading adjustments may occur during the final improvement plan process as engineering designs are refined. Grading would be completed in four phases over an 8-year period (i.e., 2025 to 2033), as described in Section 3.8. Mass grading would be balanced on site within each individual Phase, and the balanced cut/fill would include 11,600,000 cubic yards during Phase 1; 8,400,000 cubic yards during Phase 2; 6,250,000 cubic yards during Phase 3; and 7,250,000 cubic yards during Phase 4.” There is no method for the public to verify this statement. Providing the detailed, legible grading plan and earthwork quantity notes is vital as it is necessary to calculate the truck hauling trips due to soil import/export during the grading phase of construction. Figure 3-4: Conceptual Mass Grading Plan has been edited for public review to remove grading calculations, cross-sections, earthwork quantity notes, and basic information such as the north arrow and legend. A revised EIR must be prepared to include wholly accurate and detailed floor plan, site plan, grading plan, elevations, and project narrative for public review.

4.2 Air Quality, 4.5 Energy, and 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is in conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c), which requires that “Economic, social, and particularly housing factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR. If information on these factors is not contained in the EIR, the information must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the project.” This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. See also the attached air quality comments and analysis from SWAPE.

According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6065043823) is more polluted than average on several environmental indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen, and the surrounding community is burdened by these impacts. For example, the 1 CalEnviroScreen
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/page/CalEnviroScreen4_0/

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

project censustract ranksin the 99th percentile for ozone burden, the 50th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, the 36th percentile for diesel PM burden, and the 51st percentile for traffic impacts. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. While California has strict vehicle-emissions standards, exhaust from cars and trucks is the main source of air pollution in much of the state2. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure3. Exhaust fumes contain toxic chemicals that can damage DNA, cause cancer, make breathing difficult, and cause low weight and premature births4. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer5.

The census tract also ranks in the 79th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts and 53rd percentile for solid waste facility impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people6. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations7.

Further, the project’s census tract is a diverse community including 42% Hispanic, 4% Indigenous American, 6% African-American, 11% Asian-American, and 1% Native American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 51% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care.

Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 84th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 56th percentile for incidence of asthma. 2 OEHHA Traffic https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/traffic-density 3 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 4 OEHHA Traffic https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/traffic-density 5 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulatematter 6 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 7 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-andfacilities

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares8 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling sourced in Appendix B-3: Energy Analysis Report does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project’s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, it cannot conclude the project will generate less than significant impacts and a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s significant environmental impacts.

4.10 Land Use and Planning
The EIR does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. The EIR must be revised to provide the horizon year of the City’s current adopted General Plan, the total developable building floor area analyzed within each land use designation, and cumulative development since adoption of the General Plan to ensure that the proposed project is within the General Plan EIR’s analysis, particularly since the EIR tiersfrom the General Plan EIR. Notably, the project’srequired change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations indicate that the growth proposed by the project was not anticipated by the General Plan, AQMP, SCAG RTP/SCS, and any of their associated environmental analysis.

The City’s General Plan9 states that, “Specific plans are required to be consistent with all elements of the General Plan.” However, the EIR does not utilize this requirement in its analysis.

Throughout this comment letter, several areas of project noncompliance with General Plan requirements in several of its elements (Housing, Land Use, Transportation and Mobility, Noise, Sustainability, etc). Thisis in addition to the EIR’s conclusion that the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise due to the project’s noncompliance with the General Plan. The EIR must be revised to disclose the General Plan’s requirement regarding Specific Plans and include a finding of significance as the EIR has not presented any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding.
8 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1 9 https://www.cityofcalimesa.net/DocumentCenter/View/163/Calimesa-General-Plan-PDF?bidId=

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

Table 4.10-1: Potential to Conflict with General Plan Goals and Policies provides an erroneous and misleading consistency analysis with General Plan goals and policies,. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document and a revised EIR must be prepared with an accurate consistency analysis with all General Plan goals, policies, and action items, including the following:

1. Policy LU-15: Commercial and industrial developments shall be designed to reflect the smalltown atmosphere of Calimesa, using building materials such as exposed heavy timbers, weathered wood, and new and used bricks and stone, while maintaining good planning and design principles.

2. Policy LU-20: Locate land uses to achieve maximum compatibility with existing neighborhoods.

3. Action Item TM-6.1: Limit access points, parking, turn lanes, and intersections of streets and highways based on the road’s classification and function

4. Policy TM-7: Seek to maintain level of service C on all City-maintained roads. A peak-hour level of service of D, or lower, may be allowed on City-maintained road segments in commercial and employment areas or any combination of major highways, urban arterials, secondary highways, or freeway ramp intersections.

5. Action Item AQ-1.1: Require projects that generate potentially significant levels of air pollutants, such as landfill operations or large construction projects, to incorporate best available air quality and greenhouse gas mitigation in project design.

6. Action Item AQ-4.1: Require large development projects to include bicycle lanes, where feasible.

7. Action Item AQ-15.2: Require proper site planning and design features to buffer and protect when physical separation of these uses is not feasible.

8. Action Item AQ-15.3: Require businesses that cause air pollution to provide pollution control measures.

9. Policy AQ-18: Support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

10. Action Item AQ-18.1: Establish a goal and strategies to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2035.

11. Action Item AQ-18.2: Adopt and implement Calimesa-specific actions identified in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Regional Climate Action Plan.

12. Goal SUS-1: Improve health and wellness through community design.

13. Policy SUS-1: The City encourages a built environment that promotes physical activity and access to healthy foods while reducing driving and pollution.

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

The proposed project is inconsistent with the above listed items. The EIR’s analysis of selected policies is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers. For example, the EIR concludesthe project is consistent with Policy LU-22 that requires “Locate high-density residential developments in areas served by existing and/or planned transit routes,” and the EIR states that, “the Project site would not be directly served by transit routes,” indicating that the proposed high density land use designations are not appropriate or permitted on the project site.

The EIR also concludes that the project is consistent with Policy SUS-12 that requires to, “Locate high-density residential developments in areas served by existing and/or planned transit routes, infrastructure, and commercial development,” because, “The proposed High Residential (24 dwelling units per acre) planning areas would be located adjacent to the existing Mesa View Middle School. Existing commercial development and other infrastructure is also present to the east along the I-10 corridor.” Notably, commercial development is located on the opposite side of the I-10 corridor from the project site. The EIR is misleading in that the services listed are not in close proximity to the project site to facilitate alternative transportation modes, and residents would be required to cross the I-10 freeway to access these services.

The project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions are directly inconsistent with several items,such as Goal AQ-1 through Goal AQ-5. The EIR must be revised to accurately and adequately analyze the project’s consistency with all General Plan goals/policies /action items by disclosing and utilizing the project’s environmental impacts in all analysis. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as the project directly conflicts with these policies.

Additionally, Table 1-4: Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Existing Plus Project Conditions and Table 1-5: Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Cumulative Conditions within Appendix J-2 concludes the following intersections require improvements to address service deficiencies per the applicable thresholds:

1. Intersection #12: I-10 SB Ramps & County Line Road – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

2. Intersection #15: I-10 SB Ramps & Sandalwood Drive – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

3. Intersection #17: Calimesa Boulevard & Sandalwood Drive – LOS F AM peak hour

4. Intersection #18: Calimesa Boulevard & I-10 NB Off-Ramp – LOS F AM peak hour

5. Intersection #22: Calimesa Boulevard & Singleton Road – LOS F AM peak hour

6. Intersection #13: I-10 NB Ramps & County Line Road – LOS F AM peak hour

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

7. Intersection #6: County Line Lane & County Line Road – LOS F PM peak hour Table 1-4 and Table 1-5 in Appendix J-2 provides a list of construction improvements that will allegedly mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts to the intersections to less than significant levels. It must be noted that the impacts to intersection #12, 15, 18, and 13 are Caltrans facilities.

Any improvements planned/constructed or in-lieu fees/fair share fees paid for Caltrans facilities are beyond the control/scope of the lead agency. An assessment of fees is appropriate when linked to a specific mitigation program. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, Save our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supers. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 141.) Payment of fees is not sufficient where there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099,1122.) The assessment of fees here is not adequate as there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. The improvements required are not part of an existing DIF/TUMF program and therefore are not planned to occur at all or by any certain date, whether by the City or Caltrans. Any improvements recommended or fees paid to mitigate impacts for Caltrans facilities are beyond the control of the lead agency and evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Caltrans has not been provided. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the LOS analysis as cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy:

1. Policy TM-7: Seek to maintain level of service C on all City-maintained roads. A peakhour level of service of D, or lower, may be allowed on City-maintained road segments in commercial and employment areas or any combination of major highways, urban arterials, secondary highways, or freeway ramp intersections.

4.12 Population and Housing
The project faces significant inconsistency with State Housing Element Law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6586310, a jurisdiction shall ensure that its housing element sites inventory “can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584” and “at no time…shall a city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit 10 Government Code Section 65863
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65863

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need.” Further, this Section states the following:
“No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.” Table B-9: 2021-2029 Housing Element Specific Plan and Development Agreement Sites within the City’s HCD Certified Housing Element11 identifies the entirety of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan residential development capacity as part of its identified sites inventory to accommodate its RHNA allocation, primarily units for Very Low Income, Low Income, and Moderate Income households.

Housing Element Table B-9
APNs 411210028 and 413200040 (medium high)

59.1 acres
Very Low/Low Income Units: 18
Moderate Income Units: 326
Above Moderate Income Units: 0
Total Units: 344
APNs 411210010, 413200042, and 413200048 (mixed use)
11 https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/calimesa-6th-draft-082724.pdf

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

46.5 acres
Very Low/Low Income Units: 18
Moderate Income Units: 340
Above Moderate Income Units: 0
Total Units: 358
APN 413040023 (agricultural land) (medium density)
317.7 acres
Very Low/Low Income Units: 84
Moderate Income Units: 1,585
Above Moderate Income Units: 0
Total Units: 1,669
APNs 413160011 and 413040013 (low medium)
166.9 acres
Very Low/Low Income Units: 35
Moderate Income Units: 658
Above Moderate Income Units: 0
Total Units: 693
APNs 413040020, 413040018, 413040017, and 413040025 (low) 191.6 acres
Very Low/Low Income Units: 30
Moderate Income Units: 0
Above Moderate Income Units: 556
Total Units: 586
Mesa Verde Specific Plan RHNA Totals
Very Low/Low Income Units: 185
Moderate Income Units: 2,909
Above Moderate Income Units: 556
Total Units: 3,650
The project proposes to change the boundaries of existing parcels in the identified RHNA sites and change the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Land Use designations of existing parcels in the identified RHNA sites. Additionally, the 260.7 acres of residentially designated land that will be changed to

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

a non-residential land use designation that are within the RHNA sites inventory must be removed from the Housing Element. These revisionsrequire an amendment to the Housing Element, revised analysis within the Housing Element, and HCD review of the changes. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document as it has not disclosed these requirements.

The EIR has not provided any analysis to demonstrate that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584 through the end of the 2021-2029 planning period. The EIR has not demonstrated that the City’s Housing Element can accommodate at all times throughout the planning period its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need. HCD must review the proposed changes in accordance with strict internal requirements for sites accommodating lower income housing, changed densities, sites larger than 10 acres, and approve the revised Housing Element. The EIR states that, “Per the Specific Plan Amendment, dwelling units within each Residential Planning Area may be transferred to other Residential Planning Areas as long as the minimum number of units is 3,000, the maximum number of units does not exceed 3,650 units, and the maximum density is not exceeded for the residential zoning designation.” Since the Housing Element relies on the entirety of the MVSP’s 3,650 dwelling unit capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the MVSP cannot allow any fewer than 3,650 dwelling units to be constructed on the project site. The proposed project does not comply with the City’s adopted Housing Element nor Housing Element statute. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance because the EIR has not provided substantial evidence that the City can continue to accommodate its RHNA following the potential approval of the proposed project.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast12 notes that the City will add 1,500 jobs from 2019 to 2035 and 800 jobs from 2035 to 2050, for a cumulative total of 2,300 jobs from 2019 to 2050. Based on the EIR’s calculation of 8,508 jobs, the project exceedsthe growth forecast by nearly four times. The project represents a significant amount of unplanned growth in the City as the existing General Plan and MVSP did not account for the proposed quantity of commercial development nor any industrial development. Additionally, Table 4.12-6. List of Cumulative Projects demonstrates that cumulative projects total 86,414 jobs, which is a significantly exponential exceedance of the City’s planned growth. Notably, the project’s required change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations indicate that the growth proposed by the project 12 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast
https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final040424.pdf

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

was not anticipated by the General Plan, AQMP, SCAG RTP/SCS, and any of their associated environmental analysis. Since the EIR does not provide any information regarding the General Plan buildout scenario, it is not possible for the public and decision makers to calculate the City’s progress towards General Plan buildout. The EIR has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding, and a finding of significance must be included as part of a revised EIR.

Further, the EIR does not adequately discuss the location of available workers to fill the project’s construction and/or operational jobs. Table 4.12-3. Resident Occupations within the City of Calimesa indicates that none of the City’s residents are employed in the construction or industrial sectors. This means that 100% of the project construction and operation employees will drive into the City for work. Relying on the entire labor force within the greater SCAG region to fill the project’s construction jobs will increase rates of VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances.

The EIR also references and sources “Kosmont Companies. 2022. Mesa Verde Net Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis, Calimesa, CA. October 2022,” in its analysis and methodology regarding construction and operational jobs. However, the 2022 Kosmont report is not included as an attachment for public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the 2022 Kosmont report contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand. A revised EIR must be prepared and recirculated to include the 2022 Kosmont report for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)).

4.15 Transportation
Table 4.15-5: RTP/SCS Consistency provides a misleading and erroneous consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS13. The EIR has not provided any analysis in accordance with the policies of the RTP. It must be noted that Appendix J-2 states that, “The Project is proposing to add population and employment above what is included in the existing cumulative year RIVCOM model and would not be consistent with the land uses assumed in the cumulative conditions. Therefore, the Project would not be consistent with RTP/SCS and a cumulative analysis to evaluate the Project’s effect on VMT will be required,” indicating that the 13 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

project is not consistent with the RTP/SCS. Due to errors in modeling, modeling without supporting evidence (as noted throughout this comment letter), and the EIR’s determination that the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impactsto Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise, the proposed project is directly inconsistent with the following and a revised EIR must be included with a finding of significance:

1. Housing the Region Policy 35. Encourage housing development in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic, educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region.

2. Housing the Region Policy 36. Encourage housing development in transit-supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and resilient communities.

3. Housing the Region Policy 37. Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region.

4. Housing the Region Policy 38. Prioritize communities that are vulnerable to displacement pressures by supporting community stabilization and increasing access to housing that meets the needs of the region.

5. Housing the Region Policy 39. Promote innovative strategies and partnerships to increase homeownership opportunities across the region with an emphasis on communities that have been historically impacted by redlining and other systemic barriers to homeownership for people of color and other marginalized groups.

6. Housing the Region Policy 40. Advocate for and support programs that emphasize reducing housing cost burden (for renters and homeowners), with a focus on the communities with the greatest needs and vulnerabilities.

7. Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making Policy 46. Promote racial equity that is grounded in the recognition of the past and current harms of systemic racism and one that advances restorative justice.

8. Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making Policy 47. Increase equitable, inclusive, and meaningful representation and participation of people of color and disadvantaged communities in planning processes.

9. Sustainable Development Policy 48. Promote sustainable development and best practices that enhance resource conservation, reduce resource consumption and promote resilience.

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

10. Sustainable Development Policy 49. Support communities across the region to advance innovative sustainable development practices.

11. Sustainable Development Policy 50. Recognize and support the diversity of communities across the region by promoting local place-making, planning and development efforts that advance equity, mobility, resilience and sustainability.

12. Air Quality Policy 51. Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts.

13. Air Quality Policy 52. Support investments that reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

14. Air Quality Policy 53. Reduce the exposure and impacts of emissions and pollutants and promote local and regional efforts that improve air quality for vulnerable populations, including but not limited to Priority Equity Communities and the AB 617 Communities.

15. Climate Resilience Policy 64. Prioritize the most vulnerable populations and communities subject to climate hazards to help the people, places and infrastructure that are most at risk for climate change impacts. In doing so, recognize that disadvantaged communities are often overburdened.

16. Climate Resilience Policy 65. Support local and regional climate and hazard planning and implementation efforts for transportation, land use, and other factors.

17. Climate Resilience Policy 66. Support nature-based solutions to increase regional resilience of the natural and built environment.

Table 1-4: Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Existing Plus Project Conditions and Table 1-5: Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Improvements Required to Maintain General Plan Consistency for Cumulative Conditions within Appendix J-2 concludes the following intersections require improvements to address service deficiencies per the applicable thresholds:

1. Intersection #12: I-10 SB Ramps & County Line Road – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

2. Intersection #15: I-10 SB Ramps & Sandalwood Drive – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

3. Intersection #17: Calimesa Boulevard & Sandalwood Drive – LOS F AM peak hour

4. Intersection #18: Calimesa Boulevard & I-10 NB Off-Ramp – LOS F AM peak hour

5. Intersection #22: Calimesa Boulevard & Singleton Road – LOS F AM peak hour

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

6. Intersection #13: I-10 NB Ramps & County Line Road – LOS F AM peak hour

7. Intersection #6: County Line Lane & County Line Road – LOS F PM peak hour Table 1-4 and Table 1-5 in Appendix J-2 provides a list of construction improvements that will allegedly mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts to the intersections to less than significant levels. It must be noted that the impacts to intersection #12, 15, 18, and 13 are Caltrans facilities.

Any improvements planned/constructed or in-lieu fees/fair share fees paid for Caltrans facilities are beyond the control/scope of the lead agency. An assessment of fees is appropriate when linked to a specific mitigation program. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, Save our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supers. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 141.) Payment of fees is not sufficient where there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099,1122.) The assessment of fees here is not adequate as there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. The improvements required are not part of an existing DIF/TUMF program and therefore are not planned to occur at all or by any certain date, whether by the City or Caltrans. Any improvements recommended or fees paid to mitigate impacts for Caltrans facilities are beyond the control of the lead agency and evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Caltrans has not been provided. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the LOS analysis as cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy:

1. Policy TM-7: Seek to maintain level of service C on all City-maintained roads. A peakhour level of service of D, or lower, may be allowed on City-maintained road segments in commercial and employment areas or any combination of major highways, urban arterials, secondary highways, or freeway ramp intersections.

Additionally, the improvements listed in Table 1-4 and Table 1-5 within Appendix J-2 are not included as mitigation measures for the proposed project, and are thus not required to be completed. The EIR must be revised to include the required improvementslisted in Table 1-4 and Table 1-5 within Appendix J-2 as mitigation measures.

Further, the EIR has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a fulfillment center, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s total operational VMT generated is further inconsistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. A revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

Further, Table 6: Project Effect on VMT Summary within Appendix J-1 depicts the project’s increase to Service Population as 7,503 (City Boundary and 10-Mile Boundary). This understates the project’s impacts as the project will actually create 8,509 operational jobs. The EIR must be revised to accurately quantify and analyze the project’s 8,509 operational jobs.

Additionally, Attachment C: Project Buildout Rivcom Outputs within Appendix J-1 excludes the modeling inputs from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the Rivcom modeling inputs contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand. A revised EIR must be prepared and recirculated to include the Rivcom modeling inputs for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and PRC 21003(b)).

The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. There are no dedicated exhibits adequately depicting the available maneuvering and queueing space for trucks/trailers at the intersection of the project driveways and the adjacent streets. There are also no dedicated exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks/trailers maneuvering throughout the site. The EIR states that, “Final designs of Project plans and all Project traffic improvements would be subject to review and approval by the City, thereby ensuring conformance of improvements with City design and safety standards,” which is deferred mitigation to after the CEQA public review process. This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation, deferred mitigation, and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

disclosure and adequate informational documents. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding.

There are also no exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access. Notably, the EIR states that, “Specific fire and life safety requirements would be addressed at the building permit phase when architectural plans are submitted for City review and approval. Adequate emergency access and compliance with emergency access and design standards would be ensured through this review by the City’s Public Works and Fire Department throughout the phased development of the Project,” which is deferred mitigation to after the CEQA public review process. This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysisrequired by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation, deferred mitigation, and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding.

Additionally, the EIR has not provided any analysis of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets. Sight distance is the continuous length of street ahead visible to the driver. At unsignalized intersections, corner sight distance must provide a substantially clear line of sight between the driver of the vehicle waiting on the minor road (driveway) and the driver of an approaching vehicle. The industry standard for this analysis is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Stopping Sight Distance requirements. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding.

5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project
The EIR must include a cumulative employment analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. As discussed above, SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast14 notes that the City will add 1,500 jobs from 2019 to 2035 and 800 jobs from 2035 to 2050, for a cumulative total of 2,300 jobs from 2019 to 2050. Based on the EIR’s calculation of 8,508 jobs, the project exceeds the growth forecast by 14 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast
https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final040424.pdf

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

nearly four times. The project represents a significant amount of unplanned growth in the City as the existing General Plan and MVSP did not account for the proposed quantity of commercial development nor any industrial development. Additionally, Table 4.12-6. List of Cumulative Projects demonstrates that cumulative projects total 86,414 jobs, which is a significantly exponential exceedance of the City’s planned growth. Notably, the project’s required change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations indicate that the growth proposed by the project was not anticipated by the General Plan, AQMP, SCAG RTP/SCS, and any of their associated environmental analysis. Since the EIR does not provide any information regarding the General Plan buildout scenario, it is not possible for the public and decision makers to calculate the City’s progress towards General Plan buildout (building area, population, housing units, households, employment, etc.). The EIR has not provided any substantial evidence to support a less than significant finding, and a finding of significance must be included as part of a revised EIR.

Further, the EIR does not adequately discuss the location of available workers to fill the project’s construction and/or operational jobs. Table 4.12-3. Resident Occupations within the City of Calimesa indicates that none of the City’s residents are employed in the construction or industrial sectors. This means that 100% of the project construction and operation employees will drive into the City for work. Relying on the entire labor force within the greater SCAG region to fill the project’s construction jobs will increase rates of VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances.

Impact on Biological Resources
Please see the attached comments and analysis from Dr. Smallwood.

6.0 Alternatives
The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.) The alternatives chosen for analysis does not appear to include the CEQA required “No Project/No Development Alternative” alternative. The alternatives include (1) Previously Approved 2017 Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 1 (No Project); (2) Business Park Use Restrictions 1; (3) Reduced Grading/Increased Residential Density/Decreased Business Park; (4) Reduced Grading/Increased Residential Density/Decreased Business Park – Emergency-Access Only on County Line Road; (5) Active Adult Units; and (6) Business Park Use Restrictions 2.

The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternativesthat fostersinformed decision-making as the CEQA required No Project/No Development is not analyzed and no alternative reduces the

Selenne Sevilla
August 21, 2025

project impacts to less than significant levels (CEQA § 15126.6). The EIR must be revised to include an alternatives analysis that complies with CEQA. This could include alternatives such as development of the site with a project that reduces all the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Noise impacts to less than significant, and a mixed-use project that provides affordable housing and exclusively local-serving commercial uses that may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

Sincerely,
Vashon Simien
Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP
Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis

2. Shawn Smallwood, PhD Analysis Report

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
August 19, 2025
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project (SCH No. 2004071045)
Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the July 2025 Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project (“Project”) located in the City of Calimesa (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 3,650 residential units, 4,440,000-square-feet (“SF”) of business park space, and up to 300,000-SF of commercial building area on the 1,463.1-acre site.

Our review concludes that the SEIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The SEIR estimates that the Project’s construction-related and operational VOC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) thresholds (see screenshot below) (p. 4.2-47, Table 4.2-11).

2 The SEIR concludes that the impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be significant-and-unavoidable. The SEIR states:
“As shown in Table 4.2-11, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the combined construction and operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s mass daily regional operational thresholds. As such, impacts would be significant and unavoidable which is consistent with the significance finding for operational emissions detailed within Table 4.2-9” (p.

4.2-48).

While we agree that the Project would result in significant air quality impacts, the SEIR’s assertion that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is unreliable. According to CEQA Guidelines §15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”1
As such, the SEIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. To reduce the Project’s air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” The Project should not be approved until a revised EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.
1 “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15096.” California Legislature, available at: https://casetext.com/regulation/californiacode-of-regulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3-guidelines-forimplementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-7-eir-process/section-15096-process-for-aresponsible-agency.

3 Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The SEIR estimates that the Project would result in net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 84,213.01 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (see screenshot below) (p. 4.7-37, Table 4.7-6).

The SEIR concludes that the Project would exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year and result in a significant-and-unavoidable GHG impact (p. 4.7-37 – 4.7-38).

While we agree that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, the SEIR’s assertion that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is unsupported, as additional feasible mitigation is available. As previously discussed, CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2) indicates that an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation measures are considered. To reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures

4 Available to Reduce Emissions.” The Project should not be approved until a revised EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions The SEIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project results in significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the VOC emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend mitigation used by other land use development projects to address VOC/ROG emissions: 2 • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain • Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions. • Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use prepainted construction materials to the extent practicable. • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

Additionally, Los Angeles County recommends:3
• If paints and coatings with VOC content of 0 grams/liter to less than 10 grams/liter cannot be utilized, the developer shall avoid application of architectural coatings during the peak smog season: July, August, and September.

While the Project is not located in Los Angeles County, avoiding the use of VOC paints during smog season would nonetheless decrease the Project’s significant VOC emissions.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends conducting calculations for coverage area and thinning ratios prior to purchasing paints. By applying these calculations, the appropriate quantity of paint can be acquired, thereby helping to minimize waste and optimize resource use.4 2 “Banning Commerce Center Project.” Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June 2024, available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090102/2; Draft Environmental Impact Report, p. 1-7. 3 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.” Los Angeles County Housing Element Update Program EIR.

August 2021, available at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Housing_final-peirmitigation-monitoring.pdf. 4 “Industrial Surface Coating.” Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, September 1997, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/iii08.pdf, Volume III, Chapter 8, p. 8.3-1.

5 To reduce construction VOC emissions, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) recommends the use of:5
• Natural materials such as solid wood products (e.g., hard wood flooring and wood paneling), natural stone (e.g., granite and marble), ceramic tile, and glass. • Composite wood products that comply with the California Air Resources Board's (“CARB”) Airborne Toxic Control Measure for formaldehyde.
• Interior paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants that comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1168 or CARB’s Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings. • Flooring materials that are certified as low emitting under the CDPH Standard Method v1.2 or equivalent.
• Sealer on the surface of spray-on fireproofing to reduce adsorption of VOCs using a low-VOC sealer, if necessary.

An additional mitigation measure that may reduce the impact from operational VOC emissions is to implement a mechanical ventilation system meeting ASHRAE Standards 62.1 and 62.2. 6 HVAC systems
should include MERV 13 or higher filters to reduce indoor pollutant exposure. Prior to occupancy, the building should undergo a flush-out period with HVAC systems operating at full capacity for at least 48 hours to remove residual VOCs and improve indoor air quality.

The EPA explains that NOx emissions originate from “motor vehicle internal combustion engines and fossil fuel-fired electric utility and industrial boilers” and sources of PM10 emissions include “vehicle exhaust and road dust.”7,8 To reduce the NOx and PM10 emissions associated with Project construction and operation, CARB recommends:
9 • Require all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered. • Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022. • Require all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality regulations.
5 “Reducing occupant exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from indoor sources: Guidelines for building occupants.” California Department of Public Health, July 1996, available at:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/CDPH%20Document%20Library/reducing_occupa nt_exposure_vocs_guidelines_ADA.pdf. 6 Ibid., p. xii. 7 “Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide.” EPA, July 2009, available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. 8 “Particle Pollution and your Health.” EPA, September 2003, available at:
https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-and-your-health/partical-pollution-and-your-health/. 9 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8.

6 • Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable. • Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.
• Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Additional incentive funds can be obtained from the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program. • Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

In addition to recommending similar mitigation as the above-mentioned measures from CARB, the California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) suggests:
10 • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance).
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• Sequent future projects under the Proposed Project shall install Level 2 EV charging stations in 15% of all parking spaces for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for a Level 2 EV charging stations in all single-family residential garages.

SCAQMD staff recommends: 11
• Zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks, such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. 10 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10. 11 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 2 - 3.

7 • A phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts.
• The use of, at least, a 2010 model year that meets CARB’s 2010 engine emissions standards at

0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks.

To reduce the GHG emissions associated with the Project, the CA DOJ recommends: 12 • Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces.
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.

SCAQMD staff recommends: 13
• Maximizing the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays. • Using light-colored roofing materials.

CEQA Guidelines 15126.4 (c)(3) include “[o]ffsite measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions” as an option for GHG mitigation. 14 An example of this was in
the case of the Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project, where off-site reduction measures in the neighboring communities were recommended.15 We recommend consideration of local carbon offset programs to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts as a measure of last result. 12 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10. 13 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 3. 14 “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.” CEQA Guidelines, May 2024, available at:
https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resourcesagency/chapter-3-guidelines-for-implementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-9-contents-ofenvironmental-impact-reports/section-151264-consideration-and-discussion-of-mitigation-measures-proposed-tominimize-significant-effects. 15 “Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.6.7.” 2023, available at: https://casetext.com/statute/californiacodes/california-public-resources-code/division-13-environmental-quality/chapter-6-limitations/section-2116867- oakland-sports-and-mixed-use-project-conditions-for-approval-certification-of-project-for-streamlining.

8 As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated VOC, NOx, and PM10, and GHG emissions developed from sources including the DOJ and others.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

A revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist, P.G.

California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.

Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

Government:

Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); Attachment A

2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).

Educational:

Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).

Private Sector:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony

3 against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexicoand advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:

Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon.

5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.

Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.

In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.

Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.

Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.

Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.

BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBEReleases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National GroundwaterAssociation.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin

7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking WaterSupplies.

Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to AddressImpacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublishedreport.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.

8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.

Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.

Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.

Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.

Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.

Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.

Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Gary Ho
Blum Collins Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90017 18 August 2025
RE: Mesa Verde Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Ho,
I write to comment on the analysis of potential impacts on biological resources that is reported in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) prepared for the proposed Mesa Verde Specific Plan. I understand the project would add 3,650 residential units and 4.44 million square feet of building area with the Business Park zone and up to 300,000 square feet of commercial building area on 1,475.8 acres south of Interstate 10 and Live Oak Canyon Rd, and north of San Timoteo Rd in Calimesa, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the DSEIR mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation should emphasize potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species, but it applies to wildlife populations and plant and

2 animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which specialstatus species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx ?DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).

SITE VISITS
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project on 19 and 23 July 2025 (Table 1). Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars during daylight. During the night, Noriko mounted a Pettersson M500 bat detector on a 30-foot pole, and she identified bat species by sonograms of their foraging calls with use of Sonobat Live. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Table 1. Summary of Noriko Smallwood’s surveys conducted at the Mesa Verde project site.

Date
Survey
type
Start
time
Length
(mins) Conditions
Temperature (F)Wind
(MPH)
7/19/2025 Diurnal 17:20 190 Sunny 81-76 7 W
7/19/2025 Nocturnal 19:48 120 Clear 76-71 5 W
7/23/2025 Diurnal 06:00 51 Partly cloudy 57 3 NE
7/23/2025 Diurnal 07:04 160 Partly cloudy to sunny 61-71 3 NW 7/23/2025 Diurnal 18:28 120 Sunny 82-76 9 W
7/23/2025 Nocturnal 19:53 100 Clear 76-70 7 NW

3 The site is primarily sage scrub, oak woodland, grassland, and riparian (Photos 1 and 2).

The site exists in a largely natural condition with only light human use.

Noriko saw red-tailed hawk (Photos 3−4), American kestrel (Photos 5−6), California scrub-jay (Photo 7), mourning dove and Costa’s hummingbird (Photos 8−9), Cassin’s kingbird (Photo 10), ash-throated flycatcher and black phoebe (Photos 11−12), Say’s phoebe and hooded oriole (Photos 13−14), acorn woodpecker and common raven (Photos 15−16), cliff swallow, barn swallow, tree swallow and black swift (Photos 17−20), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Photo 21), lesser goldfinch and house finch (Photos 22−23), California towhee and spotted towhee (Photos 24−25), lark sparrow and desert cottontail (Photos 26−27), California ground squirrel (Photos 28−30), common side-blotched lizard (Photos 31−32), Mexican free-tailed bat, western mastiff bat, and silver-haired bat (Photos 33−35), and others totaling 53 species including 15 with special status (Table 2).

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

4 Photos 3 and 4. Red-tailed hawk on the project site (left), and just off the project site (right), 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 5 and 6. American kestrels on the project site, 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

5 Photo 7. California
scrub-jay just off the
project site, 23 July
2025. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 8 and 9. Mourning dove (left), and Costa’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

6 Photo 10. Cassin’s kingbird with an insect on the project site, 19 July 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 11 and 12. Ash-throated flycatcher on the project site (left), and black phoebe just off the project site (right), 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

7 Photos 13 and 4 Say’s phoebe (left), and hooded oriole (right) on the project site, 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 15 and 16. Acorn woodpecker (left), and common raven (right) on the project site, 19 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

8 Photos 17, 18, 19, and 20. Cliff swallow (top left), barn swallow (top right), tree swallow (bottom left), and black swift (bottom right), all on the project site except tree swallow, which was just off the project site, 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

9 Photo 21. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow just off the project site, 23 July 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 22 and 23. Lesser goldfinch (left), and house finch (right) on the project site, 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

10 Photos 24 and 25.

California towhee juvenile
(top), and spotted towhee
(bottom), just off the
project site, 23 July 2025.

Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.

11 Photos 26 and 27. Lark sparrow just off of the project site (top), and desert cottontail on the project site (bottom), 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

12 Photos 28, 29, and 30. California ground squirrels on the project site, 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

13 Photos 31 and 32. Western side blotched lizards on the project site (top) and just off the project site (bottom), 19 and 23 July 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

14 Photos 33, 34, and 35 Sonogram of Mexican free-tailed bat (top), western mastiff bat (middle), and silver-haired bat (bottom) detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson M500 bat detector, 19 and 23 July 2025.

15 Table 2. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.17 hours of diurnal survey and 2 hours of nocturnal survey on 19 July 2025, and during 5.52 hours of diurnal survey and 1.67 hours of nocturnal survey on 23 July 2025.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Harvester ant Pogonomyrmex Many
Whiptail
Aspidoscelis [tigris
stejnegeri]
2 SSC probable Just off site
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
California quail Callipepla californica Just off site
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Tracks
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Just off site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Just off site
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Called during bat survey Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Foraged
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Just off site
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Just off site American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia WL
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Many foraged just off
site
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Foraged
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Foraged
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged just off site
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Pair
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Just off site Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

16 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Many
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus
Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
WL
Just off site
California towhee Melozone crissalis Juveniles
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
California ground
squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Many
Bobcat Lynx rufus Tracks
Coyote Canis latrans Tracks and scat
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp. Burrows
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List as SSC = California Species of Special Concern (see Shuford and Gardali 2008 for numbers indicating priority of concern) or WL = Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/birdsof-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
2 Probably the bracketed subspecies base on location.

Noriko detected 54 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a relatively large number for the brevity of her survey effort. However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her surveys to predict the numbers of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The form of the model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. Three of the four models fit to Noriko’s survey data predicted more species were available to be detected (Figure 1). Nearly all the data occurred above the upper bound of the 95% conficence interval I estimated from surveys at other project sites in the region (Figure 1). Therefore, the project site is richer in wildlife species than nearly all the many sites Noriko and I have surveyed in the region.

17 Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visualscan surveys on
19 and 23 July
2025.

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 19 and 23 July 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. A survey spanning only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two surveys.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
95% CI 2019-2024 in region
Y072325 0600 0.95
Y071925 1720 0.97
r
2 Y072325 0700 0.99
Y072325 1828 0.99

18 the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.

As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 23.55 species over my first 9.09 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (9.09 hours to match the 9.09 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 41.3% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 50 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her

9.09 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 41.3% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 50

0.413 ⁄ = 121
species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 121 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 29 special-status species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 121 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 29 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her two surveys to inventory the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively speciesrich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

19 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

The DSEIR repeats Dudek’s (2025) characterization of the project site as degraded by numerous roads created by recreational vehicle activity, by incised drainages, and by two wildfires that happened in 2017 and 2019. However, the biological community is adapted to wildfire, and it is not necessarily unnatural for drainages in the region to be incised. Dudek’s characterization also exaggerates the degradation of the site caused by dirt roads. Most of the off-road vehicle activity is evidenced on the east side of the project site, and according to Google Earth imagery it is not evidenced “throughout” the site. Moreover, the species richness of the site is indicative of an ecologically intact site.

The survey results depict a different project site than characterized by Dudek. 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)

20 Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, however, no analysts obtained the information needed to accurately predict impacts to wildlife.

Dudek (2025) committed 617 person-hours in 51 surveys involving 29 biologists to map vegetation and assess habitat, delineate aquatic resources, perform focused surveys for special-status species of plants, and perform protocol surveys for burrowing owls.

Dudek (2025) also documented all dates, start times, and durations of its surveys, as well as weather conditions, and all this documentation of surveys is commendable. It would have been helpful to also report the species detected per each survey, rather than the compendium of species detected across all surveys.

Dudek’s biologists detected 76 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 23 special-status species. Noriko’s surveys added eight species to those detected by Dudek, bringing the combined total to 84 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 27 special-status species.

The special-status species composed 32% of all species of vertebrate wildlife detected on the project site, and the non-native species composed only 3.6%. The former percentage is relatively high in my experience, and the latter is relatively low. These percentages considered together are indicative of an ecologically intact, species-rich wildlife community. But Dudek (2025) fails to convey this characterization of the wildlife community because it fails to provide comparative context with which to interpret the survey results.

As revealed in Figure 1, Noriko’s rates of detection of wildlife species exceeded the upper bound of my 95% confidence interval that I estimated from surveys at many other project sites in the Inland Empire region of California. Comparatively, this project site is exceptional in its species richness, and with such a high percentage of special-status species and such a low percentage of non-native species, it is all the more obviously exceptional. The site also supports eight special-status vegetation communities totaling >21 acres (Dudek 2025).

And there remains more to be learned about the site’s wildlife community. Noriko detected three species of bats, two of which are special-status species. I have no doubt that additional bat surveys would result in detections of more bat species. Furthermore, no trapping has been performed for small mammals on the project site, and trapping would increase the number of species detected on site considerably. Noriko saw evidence of kangaroo rats on the site, so trapping should be conducted according to protocols for Stephens kangaroo rant and San Bernardino kangaroo rat. With additional appropriate surveys, an inventory of the should include the 121 species predicted by my analytical bridge of Noriko’s survey findings to a larger research site, plus nocturnally

21 active and fossorial species. In my estimation, adding appropriate surveys would bring the inventory of vertebrate wildlife species to at least 150 species, including about 50 special-status species.

To its credit, Dudek (2025) acknowledges the limitations of its surveys, consistent with my comments in the preceding paragraph. I disagree with Dudek, however, where it concludes “despite these limitations, the survey work conducted in the study area provides an adequate overall assessment of faunal resources for the purposes of evaluating potential biological constraints.” The assessment is inadequate by neglecting the considerable nocturnal portion of the wildlife community and small mammals. It also is inadequate by not comparing survey result to what is known or expected of wildlife species richness and community composition at other locations.

With 84 wildlife species detected, nearly half the species that occur on the site have yet to be identified and confirmed on site. All these species should be assessed for occurrence likelihood in the desktop analysis, and I will comment on this analysis next.

But based on confirmed determinations of the species composing the wildlife community, the foundation needed for analyzing potential project impacts and for formulating an appropriate mitigation strategy remains deficient. Dudek (2025) spent 617 person-hours on the project site for environmental surveys, which again is commendable, but more targeted surveys are needed to search for the types of wildlife that the surveys-to-date were ill-suited. Acoustical bat surveys are easy and low-cost, and with qualified biologists, live-trapping for small mammals is also cost-effective.

Thermal-imaging at night would be another method to detect species that are elusive to daytime pedestrian surveys.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.

In its desktop review, Dudek (2025) reportedly queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for species occurrence records within one USGS Quadrangle of the project site, but it did not reportedly rely on eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org), which are additional species occurrence databases, and just as, if not more, useful as the CNDDB. Without reviewing eBird and iNaturalist, the desktop review was incomplete.

By querying the CNDDB to establish the pool of special-status species for analysis of occurrence likelihoods, Dudek (2025) screens out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. This initial step omits species from habitat assessment

22 or from consideration of whether the species’ geographic range overlaps the project site, and it effectively determines that these species are absent from the project site before any other steps are taken. The CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.

That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Dudek (2025) and hence the DSEIR misuse the CNDDB.

The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.

And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.

In my assessment based on a database review and a site visit, 142 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 3). Of these 142 species, 28 (20%) were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 32 (23%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 9 (6%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 64 (45%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Almost half (49%) of the species in Table 3 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports many special-status species of wildlife and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than the DSEIR would have the reader believe.

Of the 142 special-status species listed in Table 3, the DSEIR analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of only 38 (27%) of them, and it fails to analyze the occurrence likelihoods of 73% of them. Of these 104 species not analyzed for occurrence potential, 21 (20%) of them were detected on site by Noriko, by Dudek, or by eBird occurrence records. Of the 38 species assessed for occurrence likelihoods by Dudek, 14 are determined to be “not expected,” but Noriko found one of these (black swift) on site. Dudek determines five of the 38 to have low occurrence likelihood, but Noriko found one of these (western mastiff

23 bat) on site, as well. Of the species Dudek determines to be not expected to occur or to have a low likelihood to occur, six have been recorded in eBird as having occurred within 1.5 miles of the site. Dudek’s (2025) analysis of occurrence records comports poorly with the evidence, and it is therefore unreliable as a predictive tool.

According to the DSEIR (p. 4.3-9), “No other non-listed, special-status wildlife species were observed or determined to have at least a moderate potential to occur within the study area.” This statement might be true, but Dudek’s (2025) habitat assessment is inaccurate and unreliable. As examples, Dudek (2025) determines black swift and western mastiff bat as not expected to occur, but Noriko detected both on the project site. An inaccurate baseline characterization of the wildlife community is ill-suited for accurate analysis of project impacts on wildlife, and therefore ill-suited for formulating appropriate mitigation.

I also note that 47 (33%) of the special-status species in Table 3 are covered by the incidental take permit of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Fifteen of the covered species are known to occur on the project site, but it is yet to be determined through detections whether the other 32 covered species occur there. More importantly, twothirds of the species in Table 3 are not covered by the MSHCP, and therefore the MSHCP is not designed to mitigate impacts to these species. Thirteen of the species lacking MSHCP coverage are known to occur on or just next to the project site, and another 18 of the species lacking MSHCP coverage have been recorded as having occurred within 1.5 miles of the site. Therefore, many species are known to occur on or very close to the site, but which are not going to be mitigated via the MSHCP.

24 Table 3. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood.

Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT Yes In range San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In range Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Yes In region Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
FE Yes In region
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Moderate Very close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Yes Moderate In region California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC Yes In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata FC, SSC Yes None In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes Moderate In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes High In region/On site San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Moderate Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Moderate In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Moderate In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC None In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes Seen on site Very close/On site (Dudek)
Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close

25 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC In region
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE Yes In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Yes None In region/On site Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close/On site (Dudek)
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Yes In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region

26 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Yes Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)/Just off
site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Yes Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Yes Seen on site.

Moderate
(nest)
Very close/On site
(Dudek)
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
Yes Low (nest),
moderate
(forage)
Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Yes Seen on site.

Low (nest)
Very close/On site
(Dudek)
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)/On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
Yes Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close/On site (Dudek)/Just off
site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Yes None Very close

27 Common name Species name Status
1 Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close/On site (Dudek) /On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Yes On site
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close/On site
(Dudek)
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close/On site (Dudek) /On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,

BOP, CCE
Yes Low Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close/On site (Dudek) /On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/On site (Dudek) /On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Yes Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close

28 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes None In range
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Yes None Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Yes Moderate Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Yes Very close/On site Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Yes None In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC On site/On site
(Dudek) /On site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Low Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close/On site (Dudek)/Just off
site
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Yes Very close Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Yes Nearby/On site (Dudek)
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Yes Very close/On site (Dudek)/Just off
site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes None Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 None Very close

29 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close/On site (Dudek)
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Yes None Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Yes Seen on site.

Low (nest)
Very close/On site
(Dudek)
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In range
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region/On site Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H None In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H None In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Low In region Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M None In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Low In range/On site

30 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by
MSHCP
Occurrence potentials
Dudek
2025
Database
records, Site
visits
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Yes In region
Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus
femoralis
SSC Moderate In range
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Yes High In region
Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region
San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus FE, CE, SSC Yes None In region Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT Yes Low In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Yes Moderate In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Yes Moderate In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC Moderate In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Moderate Very close
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservationconcern-2021.pdf), CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List, and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

31 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Whether the impacts analysis is made by the lead agency or by an expert, the analysis involves prediction. Predictions are necessary because measuring the impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and this type of measurement would prevent the formulations of avoidance and minimization mitigation strategies that are prioritized by the CEQA. Impact predictions are necessary as part of the environmental review. The accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3).

Figure 3. General flow of information from the gathering stage through the characterization of the existing environment to predictions of impacts and their significance.

Impact predictions can derive from speculation or from some level of experience (Figure 4). Speculation is repeatedly discouraged in the CEQA Guidelines, and for good reason because prediction accuracy improves with experience. But the experience that can be brought to bear on impact predictions ranges from anecdotes to careful use of scientific inference. Any type of experience is usually better than relying on speculation, but careful scientific inference, especially inference drawn from experiments, have proven most effective. An analogy would be predicting the boiling temperature of water at a certain place with a known atmospheric pressure after having measured it hundreds of times at other places under various atmospheric pressures. The experience of measuring the boiling temperature at all these other places would certainly result in a more accurate prediction of the boiling point as compared to a speculative prediction. We know that use of inference in this example is certainly more predictive, and not potentially more predictive, because we have a long successful history with the application of this type of experimentation to draw predictive inference.

Assess species occurrence likelihoods

1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover

2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment

3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes

5. Predict impacts

6. Formulate mitigation strategy

7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community

4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement Page 847 of 1216
32 Figure 4. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.

In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which is adequately analyzed in the DSEIR.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species, but the DSEIR does not attempt to estimate the numerical or productive capacities of the site for nesting birds. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 84 species of wildlife which Dudek and Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s surveys were only reconnaissance surveys and therefore unsuitable for detecting all bird nests on the site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko has completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in the local area.

Noriko estimated 5.56 nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in Murrieta, and 1.86 nests/acre on another 4.83-acre grassland site bordering a strip of woodland in Murietta. The average of the above two estimates is

3.71 nests/acre. This density applied to the 1,172 acres of cleared vegetation would predict 4,348 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions

33 6,044 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 17,258 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 4,348 nest sites and 6,044 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the DSEIR. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 17,258 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 19,432 birds per year denied to California.

The loss of 19,432 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the DSEIR attempts to downplay what are obviously serious threats posed by the project to wildlife movement in the region. Part of the project site has been identified by the South Coast Missing Linkages Project as a needed movement corridor. Most of the project area has been mapped as Terrestrial Connectivity Areas of Conservation Emphasis level 4 (out of 5, which is the highest level). The project site abuts the Western Riverside County MSHCP’s Subunits 2 and 3, and conserved lands. The landscape context of the project site indicates a strong likelihood that the site is exceptionally important to wildlife movement in the region, as it provides wildlife passage between the natural spaces of two mountain ranges and adjoining lands have been protected as part of larger mitigation strategies to conserve the capacity for wildlife movement in the region. The many species of wildlife detected on the project site also serve as evidence that the site is important to wildlife movement in the region, else how would those species have gotten to the site? Nonetheless, the DSEIR does not assess the importance of the project site other than to claim that both Yucaipa Creek and Oak Glen Creek “become rather constrained once they pass under I-10.”
At p. 4.3-55, the DSEIR writes, “The conservation of land at the southeastern portion of the Project site would contribute to the Oak Valley Partners Conservation Land along Garden Air Wash, creating a corridor that is between 2,000 feet and 5,600 feet in total (accounting for both the Project conservation and Oak Valley Partners Conservation Land).” However, the use of the phrase “would contribute” is misleading by suggesting that some quality would be added to the conservation objectives of the Oak Valley Partners Conservation Land. In reality, the open space of the entire project site already contributes to the conservation objectives of the Oak Valley Partners Conservation Land, and the proposed project would destroy most of this existing contribution. In

34 reality, the project would only leave a constructed corridor as defined in Smallwood (2015).

What is needed but not provided is a program of observation to characterize how wildlife use the site for movement in the region. Biologists should have already observed how wildlife utilize the project site to achieve their needs to move in the region. For example, patterns of bird flights could have been quantified from visual-scan surveys, and patterns of mammalian travel could have been revealed by use of a thermal-imaging camera at night, or a search for tracks during daytime. Biologists know how to detect patterns of wildlife movement; they were just not assigned the task in the case of this environmental review. A consequence is that Dudek and the DSEIR lack an empirical basis for predicting project impacts to wildlife movement in the region, nor for measuring impacts.

One of the most important purposes of environmental review pursuant to the CEQA is to provide a baseline of conditions, and it is from this baseline that impacts can be measured (see Smallwood and Smallwood 2023 for an example). In the case of wildlife movement, the DSEIR provides no baseline from which to measure impacts, let along from which to predict impacts.

HOUSE CAT DEPREDATION OF WILDLIFE
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).

Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The DSEIR predicts 10,038 new residents would be added by the project. The above rate of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 4,417 new house cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 106,14538,8740 vertebrate wildlife per year.

According to Blancher (2013), the following special-status species of birds are potentially vulnerable to cat predation, and these species would be at issue in the project area: Double-crested Cormorant, California gull, Mountain plover, willet, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, burrowing owl, willow flycatcher, [California] horned lark, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, vesper sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow.

Miller (2024:89, 120) identifies cat predation as one of the primary factors affecting the viability of burrowing owl populations in California. Many additional special-status species in the area would also be vulnerable to house cat predation, including coastal whiptail, San Diegan legless lizard, Allen’s hummingbird, wrentit, California gnatcatcher, California thrasher, Lawrence’s goldfinch, yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, and many others. Furthermore, house cats likely depress the prey populations of raptors, red-diamond rattlesnakes, and American badgers.

35 House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (The original link is no longer active, but the quote came from the program described at:
https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter).

Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the DSEIR. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.

The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 95 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 3). All the birds represented in Table 3 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.

And Noriko confirmed 22 species on the project site, some of them flying across the site.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision

36 hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the

37 fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The DSEIR does not report the extent of windows in the project, but it does report the number of residential units and the total floorspace of commercial and industrial uses.

Assuming 1,820 sf per residential unit and applying to this the average window space/sf

38 of homes I have recorded from other proposed projects of 0.01707056 m2 of window/sf floorspace, then I predict 113,765 m2 of windows among the 3,650 residential units. My average window space per sf is 0.016212938 at commercial buildings and 0.022408088 at industrial/office/education buildings in other projects. With these rates applied to 300,000 sf of commercial floorspace and 4.44 million sf of industrial/office/education floorspace, I predict 4,864 m2 of windows on commercial buildings and 99,492 m2 of windows on industrial/office/education buildings. Combined, I predict the project would add 218,121 m2 of external glass that would expose birds to collision mortality.

The above-reported average of bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year applied to 218,121 m2 of external glass in the project predicts 15,945 (95% CI: 9,467−22,423) bird collision fatalities per year.

Most of the predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, the lack of any analysis of it in the DSEIR, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds. The DSEIR should be revised to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of bird-window collision mortality, and to formulate appropriate mitigation measures.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
The DSEIR neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 36―39), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

39 Photo 36. A white-tailed
antelope squirrel runs across the
road just in the Coachella Valley,
26 May 2022. Such road
crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the
animal.

Photo 37. A coyote uses the
crosswalk to cross a road on 2
February 2023. Not all drivers
stop, nor do all animals use the
crosswalk. Too often, animals
are injured or killed when they
attempt to cross roads.

Photos 38 and 39. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle on a California road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.) The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study

40 found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.

An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The DSEIR’s Air Quality analysis predicts 45,014,016 annual VMT would be generated by the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 19,147 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The DSEIR does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed

41 project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that, as the DSEIR is currently written, these impacts would be unmitigated.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The principal argument in support of the DSEIR’s conclusion of no significant cumulative impacts is that the mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 would avoid direct impacts. This is a flawed approach to analysis of cumulative impacts, because as the CEQA Guidelines explain, direct impacts can be found less than significant but they can nevertheless contribute significantly to cumulative impacts. The appropriate analysis would start with the question of whether the project’s incremental removals of wildlife habitat and capacity for movement in the region are cumulatively considerable, taking into account the effects of past and ongoing habitat fragmentation in the region.” Given the extent of habitat fragmentation and the situation of the project site within a natural linkage between two mountain ranges, the answer to the question is obviously affirmative; the loss of habitat and the loss of capacity for wildlife to move in the region would be incrementally reduced by the project.

Nonetheless, the DSEIR (p. 6.3-63) concludes the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife would not be significant because “Several of the cumulative projects … were built or are planned in undeveloped areas with similar habitat and potential special-status species constraints as present within the Project site.” The DSEIR implies that the MSHCP effectively mitigates cumulative impacts. There are several flaws with this argument, discussed below.

According to the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DSEIR identifies the MSHCP as a program that would mitigate the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife, but it fails to assess the MSHCP’s efficacy of doing so. In fact, the MSHCP has not been achieving its conservation goals. I will use the burrowing owl as an example. I understand the burrowing owl was not detected in focused surveys on the project site, but its occurrence has not been ruled out and because it is now a candidate for listing under CESA and because it is a covered species under the MSHCP, it still serves as a useful example.

The 2023 Annual Report of the MSHCP (p. 8-8) states, “The species objectives for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) require the conservation of five Core Areas, plus interconnecting linkages, containing a breeding population of 120 Burrowing Owls with no fewer than five pairs in any one Core Area.” (https://www.wrcrca.org/document-library/annual-reports/) In 2022, there were seven pairs in one Core Area, four of which produced a total four fledglings (1 fledgling per successful nest attempt). In 2023, this Core Area was down to five pairs, of which one succeeded in producing a single fledgling. Another Core area contained three pairs in 2022, and three

42 fledglings were recorded by one of these pairs. In 2023, this Core Area was down to two pairs, one of which produced five fledglings. The evidence shows a dismal failure of the MSHCP to conserve burrowing owls, as the documented breeding population was 20 (16.67% of the target) in 2022 and 14 (11.67% of the target) in 2023, and only one (20%) Core Area contained at least five pairs in either year. The MSHCP has so far failed, and its performance is declining. Assuming that the MSHCP is going to mitigate project impacts on burrowing owls would be a mistake. And the same applies to many other covered species.

Two-thirds of the special-status species in Table 3 lack coverage under the MSHCP, anyhow, and would therefore not necessarily benefit from the conservation strategy of the MSHCP. The DSEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis entirely neglects these 95 specialstatus species.

Lastly, serving as an expert in other cases involving development projects I have often seen the DSEIR’s claim of no cumulative impacts to wildlife due to the project’s compliance with existing laws, regulations, policies, pr programs, and so I decided to test the veracity of this common argument. In collaboration with Noriko Smallwood, I measured the impacts – inclusive of cumulative impacts – of wildlife habitat loss that was caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on the CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing laws, policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the cumulative effects of projects on wildlife in neighboring habitats, and we found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well. The proposed project would cause the same declines in wildlife abundance and species richness, and based on what I see in the DSEIR, these would qualify as significant unmitigated cumulative impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Before I comment specifically on the mitigation strategy, I will repeat that the formulation of an appropriate mitigation strategy can follow only from an adequate survey effort for wildlife on and around the project site. Whereas Dudek (2025) reports

43 the completion of a large survey effort, the survey could have been more efficiently allocated to appropriately survey for bats, owls and small mammals. The characterization of the wildlife community needs to be sufficiently accurate to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting. This accuracy is needed to formulate the appropriate mitigation strategy.

The DSEIR requires the following mitigation measures in bold font, on each of which I comment in regular font.

MM BIO-1: Biological Monitoring, Worker Environmental Awareness Training, Delineation of Property Boundaries, Dust Control, Stormwater Pollution Prevention, Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials, Minimize Wildlife Hazards, Minimize Invasive Weeds, Contain Night Work All the measures should be implemented, but it should be understood that the combination of these measures cannot avoid and minimize more than a very small fraction of the project’s impacts on wildlife; that is, their combined conservation benefits are very small compared to the project’s impacts on wildlife. Having performed biological monitoring and Worker Environmental Awareness Training, I can attest to the imparity of this measure in its effect versus the effect of construction. In one project where I served as biological monitor, I salvaged an endangered mouse before all its habitat was destroyed by construction. However, I cannot attest to having benefitted the environment in any way when I relocated this mouse. The mouse – a salt marsh harvest mouse – was removed from its home range and relocated to what was likely the home range of another salt marsh harvest mouse, and the relocation would have done nothing to change the carrying capacity of salt marsh harvest mouse in the area, while the construction undoubtedly reduced the carrying capacity. Biological monitoring acts on the level of the individual – and probably not very effectively, but the project’s impacts apply at the level of the population.

As for Worker Environmental Awareness Training, it needs to be remembered that construction workers operate heavy machinery and otherwise work around heavy machinery and moving vehicles. Workers need to be aware primarily of their job performance and safety. It is misleading to imply that a measure entitled Worker Environmental Awareness Training is going to result in increased worker vigilance for any mouse or lizard in harm’s way. This is not what should be expected or desired of construction workers.

All the other measures are similar to the two discussed above, as their conservation benefits act at the level of individual animals while project impacts act at the level of populations.

MM BIO-2: Best Practices for Manage Runoff, Toxicants, Lighting, Noise, Invasive Species, and Restoration of Temporary Impacts
All the measures should be implemented, but MM BIO-2 needs more detail and more commitment. As written, MM BIO-2 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore

44 unenforceable. What it needs are baseline values for runoff, water quality, ambient nocturnal light levels, ambient noise levels, and species composition, all measured at stations that can be returned to for additional measurements during and after construction. Post-construction monitoring of trespass and dumping onto open spaces is also needed. Alternative prescriptions need to be identified and required for implementation should identified thresholds of any of the above attributes be exceeded.

MM BIO-3: Pay the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee to the City of Calimesa
Of course, the applicant would need to pay the MSHCP mitigation fee, but as I commented earlier, 95 (two-thirds) of the special-status species in Table 3 are not covered by the MSHCP. Paying the fee is not going to mitigate impacts to most of the special-status species that would be adversely affected by the project. Furthermore, the MSHCP is failing to meet its conservation goals.

MM BIO-4: Pre-construction Burrowing Owl Survey
I concur with this measure.

MM BIO-5: Pre-construction Fossorial Small Mammal Clearance Survey Live-trapping for fossorial small mammals should have been conducted prior to the public circulation of the DSEIR. What is needed are detection surveys, not preconstruction “clearance” surveys. There was nothing preventing the implementation of detection surveys for small mammals prior to the public circulation of the DSEIR.

The term “clearance” is misleading in the context of this measure, because it is unrealistic to clear the project area of small mammals, especially not from only three nights of trapping. In my experience, members of a given species of kangaroo rat can readily be captured at one location, and only a few miles away none of them can be captured, and I know this because I could see the trap-shy kangaroo rats running around without entering my traps. I suspect low density might contribute to trap shyness, but I have not confirmed my suspicion. Regardless, trap success varies, and based on my experience, it is unlikely that a site can be cleared of its small mammals by live-trapping. This measure is not credible.

Moreover, the capture and relocation of fossorial small mammals can be seen as cruel to the animals in the receiving areas. Dumping kangaroo rats and pocket mice in areas where the same species already reside would increase competition for mates, home ranges and forage, hence adding stress to residents and forced emigrants as well. The carrying capacities of these species cannot be increased, so relocations would ultimately result in the same numbers of individuals that existed in the receiving areas as before the relocations. But these same numbers would be settled upon after the social chaos forced on residents in the receiving areas as a result of this measure. Although I am sure it is not the intent of this measure to be cruel, I argue it would be unethical.

45 MM BIO-6: Open Space Conservation Avoidance
The protection of 64.2 acres of Constrained Linkage 23 would follow the destruction of about 336 acres of what currently exists as Linkage 23. While the DSEIR characterizes this measure as an avoidance measure, it clearly is not; it is a minimization measure. As a minimization measure, however, its minimization is minimal. There is also no commitment to measuring the project’s impacts on wildlife movement through this Linkage. More of Linkage 23 needs to be protected, but whatever level of protection is decided, there needs to be a program of observation of wildlife moving across this linkage before, during and after project construction. This can be accomplished using event-triggered cameras, thermal-imaging from observation stations at night, and visual-scan surveys in daylight. Metrics could include the identifies of species moving across the Linkage, and the numbers of passes per hour. Measurable impacts should be additionally mitigated.

MM BIO-7: Pre-construction American Badger Surveys and Avoidance The most effective way to survey for American badgers is by nocturnal use of a thermalimaging camera. American badgers are principally nocturnal in their activities, and their use of burrows is not always evident. Often, badger burrows are well-hidden. But at night, badgers are readily detectable as they travel long distances to patrol home ranges and to forage. Detection surveys needed to be completed prior to the public circulation of the DSEIR, but regardless the preconstruction surveys should be completed using the most effective survey method, which is by thermal-imaging at night and search for scats, tracks and reamed fossorial mammal burrows by pedestrian surveys at daylight.

MM BIO-8: Pre-Construction Reptile Clearance Surveys
See my comments on MM BIO-5. It is unrealistic to expect to clear reptiles from the project area, and it is likely that relocations would result in additional harm to reptiles in receiving areas. Ultimately, the same numbers of reptiles would be lost to California regardless of whether the reptiles in harm’s way are relocated.

MM BIO-9: Focused Surveys for Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Focused surveys should be performed for this species, but they needed to be completed prior to the public circulation of the DSEIR. The public and decision-makers need to be informed over whether Crotch’s bumble bee occurs on the project site. An important difference between what the DSEIR requires and what CDFW (2023) recommends is the timing of the surveys. CDFW (2023:2) writes, “On-site surveys provide the most valuable information for determining potential impacts of proposed projects and activities on the four candidate bumble bee species, and subsequently developing measures to avoid or minimize take of these species.” CDFW obviously and appropriately recommends completing the surveys prior to the public circulation of the environmental review document, which in this case would be the DSEIR. The DSEIR

46 treats the surveys as a preconstruction survey, which CDFW’s (2023) recommended surveys are not intended to be.

The measure requires compensatory mitigation for take of Crotch’s bumble bee nests.

However, the compensatory mitigation consists of measures already required in the form of the 303.8 acres of open space and the payment of the MSHCP mitigation fee.

Piggy-backing on existing measures is inappropriate, especially considering that the

64.2 acres of Constrained Linkage 23 comes at the expense of about 336 acres of Linkage 23 lost to the project, and considering that Crotch’s bumble bee is not covered under the MSHCP.

MM BIO-10: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey
Regarding the start of construction outside the breeding season, “if feasible,” this avoidance measure is not a requirement, but rather a condition for implementing a preconstruction survey. Moreover, its implementation would not prevent the permanent loss of the avian productive capacity that I predict in my letter herein.

Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species.

To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort. Even assuming all the predicted 4,348 nest sites could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey.

After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, California would be denied the production of birds from the project site during every subsequent year. The impacts of the project on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude (see my prediction, above, of the lost productive capacity of breeding birds).

Finally, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

MM BIO-13: MSHCP Consistency and Riparian/Riverine Mitigation The Joint Power Review should include all stakeholders to the MSHCP, including the environmental groups that were involved with development of the MSHCP.

The proposed habitat restoration should be more than a tree-planting exercise, and should include performance standards based on species of wildlife that would be expected to find habitat in riparian/riverine environments. Baseline surveys are needed to establish baseline numbers of the target wildlife species where the project would destroy riparian/riverine vegetation and where it would restore riparian/riverine vegetation.

47 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Habitat loss: Should the project go forward, compensatory mitigation is needed for the loss of habitat of special-status species that are not covered by the MSHCP. Habitat of equal or greater area should be protected as close to the project site as feasible.

Payment of the required mitigation fee into the MSHCP would not suffice, because twothirds of the special-status species at issue are not covered by the MSHCP.

House Cats: If the Specific Plan goes forward, homeowners should not be allowed to let their cats range free. A fund should be established for long-term management of house cats in the Specific Plan. Management could include public education about the environmental effects of outdoor and free-ranging cats. It could also include a program to spade and neuter cats, especially free-ranging cats. It could also involve some removals of feral cats.

Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and

48 some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by house cats and by collisions with building windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the project’s homes and businesses.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

49 Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211

50 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dudek. 2025. Biological Resources Technical Report: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2. Report to Mesa Verde Owners, LLC, Irvine, California.

Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

51 Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652

52 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

53 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 - Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071045)
From Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Date Thu 7/9/2026 8:29 PM
To Jonathan Baty <[email protected]>
Cc joanne lessard <[email protected]>; Sherli Leonard <[email protected]>; Dr. Timothy Watson <[email protected]>; Kathy Behrens <[email protected]>; Carol Blaney <[email protected]>; Yaiza Benson <[email protected]> Hi Jonathan,
Received. Your comments will be entered into the record as public comments received in response to the public hearing notice.

Thank you,
Kelly Lucia, M. URP
Community Development Director
Cell 909.809.8778
Office 909.795.9801 ext. 229
Email [email protected]
Planning · Building & Safety · Code Enforcement
Please use the OpenGov Permit Portal for all submittals Check out our major development projects!
From: Jonathan Baty <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 8:16 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Cc: joanne lessard <[email protected]>; Sherli Leonard <[email protected]>; Dr. Timothy Watson <[email protected]>; Kathy Behrens <[email protected]>; Carol Blaney <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 - Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071045)
Kelly:

Shared with Planning Commission via email on 08/03/2026

Thank you for informing me of this. Please accept my comments regarding Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 - Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071045) and document them in the public record in lieu of my physical attendance.

I-10 serves as a natural fire break for Calimesa.  This proposed project will put 1000s of families in harms way by sprawling all across wildlands which frequently burn that are locally known as Southern California's Serengeti. This area frequently burns as evidenced by the below historical fire perimeter map.  Over 3000 acres of San Timoteo Canyon recently burned just a few weeks ago, just South of this map's perimeter, a simple change in wind direction would have had devastating effects on this proposed sprawl project. I request that you reconsider approving any more homes South of I-10 in this extremely hazardous terrain.  Its best left as it is serving as an irreplaceable wildlife corridor and open space adjacent to permanently protected habitat. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

This area should be added to Riverside County's permanently protected open space which will save lives by not placing homes in an extreme fire hazard location.

Thanks!
Jonathan Baty
Government Affairs Manager
Bicycle Commuter Coalition of the Inland Empire
On 6/18/26 10:03 PM, Kelly Lucia wrote:

Good evening,

Please find attached the Notice of Public Hearing for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan project.

Thank you,
Kelly Lucia, M. URP
Community Development Director
Cell 909.809.8778
Office 909.795.9801 ext. 229
Email [email protected]
Planning · Building & Safety · Code Enforcement
Please use the OpenGov Permit Portal for all submittals Check out our major development projects!
From: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 10:49 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Availability: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 - Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071045)
Good evening,
Please find attached the Notice of Availability for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

Thank you,
Kelly Lucia, M. URP
Planning Director
Cell 909.809.8778 (preferred)
Office 909.795.9801 ext. 229
Email [email protected]
City of Calimesa Planning Department

From: Kelly Lucia
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 5:24 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Preparation: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting (SCH#2004071045)
Good morning,
Please find attached the Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

Thank you,
Kelly Lucia, M. URP
Planning Director
Cell 909.809.8778 (preferred)
Office 909.795.9801 ext. 229
Email [email protected]
City of Calimesa Planning Department

Outlook
Public Comment: Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project
From Juan Banuelos <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/22/2026 6:20 PM
To Yaiza Benson <[email protected]>
Caution: External ([email protected])
First-Time Sender Details
Report This Email  FAQ  Protection by INKY
Dear Mayor and Members of the Calimesa City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed travel center included within the Mesa Verde Specific Project Plan.

While economic development can benefit our city, the proposed location of a large travel center raises serious concerns regarding public safety, quality of life, traffic, environmental impacts, and compatibility with the surrounding community. The project's proximity to residential neighborhoods, a mobile home community, and a school makes it an inappropriate location for a high-intensity commercial use that is designed to attract significant volumes of interstate traffic.

First, the existing roadway network in the area is not well suited to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic generated by a travel center. Increased truck traffic, vehicle congestion, and frequent ingress and egress from the site could create safety hazards for local residents, schoolchildren, pedestrians, and emergency responders. Narrow local roads and intersections may experience additional strain, leading to longer travel times and increased accident risks.

Second, the operation of a travel center would likely generate significant noise impacts from heavy-duty trucks, idling engines, fuel deliveries, overnight parking, public address systems, and 24-hour operations. Residents living nearby would be subjected to increased noise levels that could negatively affect their health, sleep, and overall quality of life.

Third, the project may contribute to increased air pollution from diesel exhaust, vehicle emissions, and particulate matter associated with truck traffic. These environmental impacts are particularly concerning given the proximity of homes and a school, where children and elderly residents may be more vulnerable to respiratory and other health effects.

The proposed sale of alcohol at a travel center located near a school and residential areas is also troubling. The presence of alcohol sales, combined with a high-volume, around-the-clock commercial operation, may create additional public safety concerns and is inconsistent with the family-oriented character of the surrounding community.

Shared with Planning Commission via email on 07/02/2026

In addition, travel centers are often associated with transient populations and can create challenges related to loitering, public intoxication, illegal dumping, trespassing, and increased demands on local law enforcement and public services. While not every travel center experiences these issues, the City should carefully evaluate whether such risks are appropriate near homes, schools, and other sensitive land uses.

The project's location directly adjacent to a major interstate highway also warrants careful consideration of potential criminal activity that can accompany high-traffic transportation corridors. Law enforcement agencies across the country have identified truck stops and travel centers as locations where human trafficking and other illicit activities may occur. While responsible operators work to combat these crimes, the City should weigh the increased risks associated with introducing a large travel center into a predominantly residential area.

Furthermore, the travel center appears inconsistent with sound land-use planning principles that seek to buffer high-intensity commercial and industrial uses from residential neighborhoods and schools. The long-term impacts on property values, community character, public safety, and residents' quality of life should be given significant weight in evaluating this proposal.

The Mesa Verde Specific Project Plan should prioritize development that complements the existing community, protects residents, and promotes a safe and healthy environment for families and children. A large travel center near a school and residential neighborhoods does not appear to meet those objectives.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the proposed travel center component of the Mesa Verde Specific Project Plan or require its relocation to a more appropriate site that is separated from schools, residential communities, and other sensitive uses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Juan Banuelos
Calimesa Resident