Lake Elsinore City Council
February 24, 2026

I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Dexter Village project. For purposes of this document, this application will be called the “project” or “proposed project.”
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
As defined by Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur:
 The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.  The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of longterm environmental goals.  The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
 The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration can be adopted if it can be determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

According to CEQA Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted if it is determined that although the Initial Study identifies that the project may have potentially significant effects on the environment, revisions in the project plans and/or mitigation measures, which would avoid or mitigate the effects to below the level of significance, have been made or agreed to by the applicant.

This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project may result in potentially significant environmental effects but that said effects can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental evaluations and clearance.

This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines”), as Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

amended (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of other responsible public agencies or agencies with jurisdiction by law.

The City of Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment.

C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents which are intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021).

The City of Lake Elsinore City Council, as Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the proposed project can be provided with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed project.

D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project.

I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST contains the City’s Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those areas that would have either a potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact, or no impact.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS provides the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also set forth, as appropriate, that would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of less than significance.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents the background analysis supporting each response provided in the environmental checklist form for the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 21083(b) of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.

VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those individuals consulted and involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.

E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. Responses will consider the whole action involved, including off site as well as on site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including:

1. No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.

3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

4. Potentially Significant Impact: There is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have impacts that are considered potentially significant and an EIR is required.

F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL

STUDIES
Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project which are discussed in the following section.

1. Tiered Documents
As permitted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Tiering is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15385 as follows:
“Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately site-specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of EIRs is:
(a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIR of lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR;
(b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the Lead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.

Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages repetitive analyses, as follows:
“Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.”
Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
“Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means.” For this document, the “City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report” certified December 13, 2011 (SCH #2005121019) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the proposed project site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts, which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR, as applicable. This document, therefore, evaluates site-specific impacts where possible and relies upon the analysis contained within the Lake Elsinore General Plan Final EIR for broader issue areas.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

2. Incorporation by Reference
An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]) Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs/Negative Declaration and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]).

When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as follows:
 Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or Negative Declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the Lead Agency. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b])
 The incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c])
 This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]).

3. Documents Incorporated by Reference/Technical Studies a. The following document(s) is/are incorporated by reference:
 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (SCH #2005121019), certified December 13, 2011. The General Plan EIR, from which this document is tiered, addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the project site.

Incorporated information and/or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. b. Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports are included as appendices to this Initial Study:
 Appendix A: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report, Dexter Village Project, LSA Associates Inc., June 2025.
 Appendix B: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 23.05-Acre Dexter Village Project Site, City Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

of Lake Elsinore, Western Riverside County, California, Cadre Environmental, Updated March 22, 2025.
 Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for The Dexter Village Project, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Revised April 11, 2025.
 Appendix D: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Dexter Village Project, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 377-090-013, -037, -039 and -040, Dexter Avenue and 3rd Street, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, GeoTek, Inc., October 3, 2024.
 Appendix E: Paleontological Assessment for the Dexter Village Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Revised April 11, 2025.  Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Vacant Lots Totaling Approximately

23.44 Acres, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, CA 92532, Environmental Audit, Inc., December 1, 2021
 Appendix G: Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Dexter Village, Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc., October 20, December 2025.  Appendix H: Preliminary Drainage Report, Dexter Village Project, Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc., September 12, 2025.
 Appendix I: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Dexter Village Project, LSA Associates Inc., September 2025.
 Appendix J: Traffic Impact Analysis, Dexter Village Project, LSA Associates Inc., April 14, August 2025.
 Appendix K: Water System Analysis, Dexter Village, Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc., May 20, 2025.
 Appendix L: Sewer System Analysis, Dexter Village, Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc., June 11, 2025.
c. The above-listed documents and technical studies are available for review at:

City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.

Closed Holidays
City of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department
301 Spring Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Hours: Mon-Thurs: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

Friday: 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.

Closed Holidays
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The proposed Dexter Village (project) is located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), in the western portion of Riverside County, California (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The approximately 23.05-acre project site consists of four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 377-090-013, -037, -039, -040) bound by Third Street on the northwest, Dexter Avenue on the southwest, Second Street on the southeast, and Cambern Avenue (unpaved) on the northeast (see Figure 2, USGS Topography, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

The project is within Section 31 within Township 5 South, Range 4 West, as shown on the Lake Elsinore U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5' quadrangles. The project site is located within the Business District with a General Plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed-Use and a corresponding zone classification of Commercial Mixed-Use District (CMU).

The site is currently vacant and characterized by open fields with scattered trees and some fencing.

Overhead utility lines and poles occur along the northern and western site boundaries. Surrounding uses include commercial retail and vacant land to the north, undeveloped land to the east and west, and an RV park to the south. Interstate 15 is located approximately 550 feet to the west and State Route 74 is approximately 1,300 feet to the north.

Topographically, the project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 1,350 feet above mean sea level. The project is primarily underlain by Holocene and late Pleistocene-aged young alluvial fan deposits that are composed of unconsolidated sandy alluvium. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil mapping, on-site soil consists of Arbuckle gravelly loam (2 to 9 percent slopes and 15 to 25 percent slopes); Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes); and Cortina gravelly coarse sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes). The biological setting in the general area is largely disturbed, having been cleared and repeatedly disced. The vegetation found on the property primarily consists of nonnative weeds and grasses along with a few eucalyptus, pine, tamarisk, and lilac trees. East of the project, Wasson Creek cuts through a series of foothills as it drains south towards Lake Elsinore. Smaller ephemeral drainages also cross the property in a southern trajectory.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves a Tentative Tract Map (TTM-2024-05), Conditional Use Permit (CUP-2024- 08), and Residential Design Review (RDR-2024-07). TTM-2024-05 would subdivide the 23.05-acre project site into separate lots for single-family and multi-family residential development that would be constructed in two phases. The single-family residential component would encompass 16.40 acres on the central and southern portions of the site and would be constructed in the first phase. The multi-family residential component would encompass 6.65 acres on the northern portion of the site and would be constructed in the second phase. See Figure 4, Site Plan. The project proposes a total of 451 units, including 221 single-family homes and 230 apartments. Of these 22 would be Very Low-Income affordable units. The average net density for the whole project would be 20.18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).

Single-Family Residential Component
Proposed single-family residential development would include construction of a total of 221 “for sale” units, comprised of 84 two-story townhomes and 137 two-story detached homes, and a recreation center The single-family residential component would span the central and southern portions of the site on 16.40 acres. The average net density for the single-family residential development would be 13.88 du/ac.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Townhomes
A total of 84 townhomes would be constructed in the western portion of the site, consisting of a mixture of two- and three-bedroom units ranging from 1,230 to 1,508 square feet (SF) and all with two-car garages.

The townhomes would be configured in rows as seven-plexes, separated by driveways on the rear side (garage side) and pedestrian pathways on the front side. The townhomes would be two stories and would range in height from 28 feet 1 inch to 31 feet 7 inches. Architectural styles for the townhomes include Americana/Modern Farmhouse and Santa Barbara. Americana/Modern Farmhouse style design features on the townhomes include white or blue stucco walls, gray or blue siding, gray garage doors, black window trim, terra cotta brick accent siding, gray roofing, blue corbels, red and blue entry doors, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. Santa Barbara style design features on the townhomes include white stucco walls, brown corbels and shutters, green entry doors, Arizona tile accents, red-tile roofing, tan garage doors, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. Figure 5, Townhome Building Concept, depicts a rendering of the proposed townhome buildings.

Detached Homes
A total of 137 detached single-family homes would be constructed east of the townhomes. The detached homes would include three configurations: 8-pack cluster (48 homes), 6-pack cluster (48 homes), and frontload condition (41 homes). The 8-pack cluster consists of a group of eight individual detached homes sited around a common driveway. Homes in the 8-pack clusters would include three to four bedrooms with a standard two-car garage and range from 1,323 to 1,918 SF on lot sizes ranging from 2,225 to 2,936 SF. The 6-pack cluster would entail a grouping of six homes around a common driveway. Homes in the 6-pack cluster would encompass between 1,631 and 2,146 SF on lot sizes ranging from 1,648 to 2,379 SF with three bedrooms and a standard two-car garage. The front load condition consists of individual detached homes fronting the internal access road with access to garages provided directly by the internal access road.

Homes in the front load condition would include three to four bedrooms with a standard two-car garage, ranging from 1,323 to 1,918 SF and would be located on lots that range from 1,644 to 2,878 SF. The detached homes would be two stories and would range in height from 26 feet 8 inches to 27 feet.

The detached homes would feature three architectural styles, including Americana/Modern Farmhouse, French Country, and Santa Barabara. Americana/Modern Farmhouse style design features on the detached homes include white stucco walls, gray/blue siding and gables, gray and red shutters, white trim and garage doors, clack and red entry doors, gray roofing, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. French Country style design features on the detached homes include light gray stucco walls; gray and black shutters; light gray trim; gray and black garage doors; gray, blue, and black entry doors; stone accents; gray roofing; and textured black outdoor light fixtures. Santa Barbara style design features on the detached homes include white stucco walls, green shutters, gray trim and garage doors, tan and black entry doors, canvas terra cotta awnings, Arizona tile accents, red-tile roofing, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. Figure 6, Detached Homes Building Concepts, shows elevations of representative detached homes.

Recreation Center
A recreation center would be provided in the center of the single-family residential development to serve residents in the detached homes. The recreation center would encompass 0.46 acre and would include a 1,270-SF building that contains a gathering room with a kitchen and lounge, covered outdoor lounge, restrooms, shower area, and a pool equipment room. The recreation building would be one story with a Santa Barabara architectural style that would include white stucco walls, arches, and columns; brown trim, entry doors, and corbels; stone accent siding, Arizona tile accents; red-tiled roofing; and textured black outdoor light fixtures. The recreation center would feature a swimming pool and spa; pool deck area with ....
.
,.l
I
'
,,
. .
'· ·,
I
/
----•-; ·-··- I
.,,· _,... .. . -. . ,, \ - _ _, • ~ ......

HELIX
Environmental Pl annmg •
.. .... .......... L-•-••-• -·· ----··-··--
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !!!
! !! !!!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
ø?
?a
?z
?z ?¡
?¡
?¥
?±
?±
?±
?±
?±
?³
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¿
?¿
?Æ
AÙ
A¨ AÙ
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÔ
Añ
!
Project Site

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Lee
Lake
CAMP

PENDLETON

MISSION
VIEJO
SAN

CLEMENTE
LAGUNA
BEACH

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
San Jacinto Mountains
Little San Bernardino Mountains
YUCCA
VALLEY

TWENTYNINE
PALMS

TEMECULA

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT

HEMET PALM DESERT

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA
PALM

SPRINGS PERRIS
Pacific
Ocean
Big Bear Lake Mesquite
Lake
Coyote
Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Lake
Cahuilla
Skinner
Reservoir
Salton Sea
Vail
Lake
Clark Lake
O'Neill
Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Figures.aprx 00987.00010.001 4/4/2025 - RK Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
Dexter Village
0 10 Miles
E L S 1 N 0 R E
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Figures.aprx 00987.00010.001 4/4/2025 - RK Source: Lake Elsinore 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Dexter Village
0 2,000 Feet
K
Project Site
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmental Planning -------------------------------------------------------- Project Site
!"a$ !"a$
2ND ST
3RD ST
Dexter Ave
Camino
Del Norte
Cambern Ave
Allan St
Crane Ave
Collier Ave
Wasson Canyon Rd
Crane St Thomas Way
0 300 Feet
K
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Figures.aprx 00987.00010.001 4/4/2025 - RK Source: Aerial (Esri 2022)
Dexter Village
.J 4.. -
_______________________ ±l~---- _, -- """""' w

DEXTER AVENUE DEXTER AVENUE
- - - - - ... 7
HELIX
Environmental Planning --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dexter Village
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig4_SitePlan.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK Source: Urban Arena 2025
Site Plan
Figure 4
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Dexter Village
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig5_TownhomeBuilding.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK Source: Urban Arena 2025
Townhome Building Concept
Figure 5
Dexter Village
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig6_DetachedHomes.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK 26-8” 26-8”
26-8”
Modern Farmhouse Concept
French Country Concept
Santa Barbara Concept
Source: Urban Arena 2025
HELIX
Environmental Planning --------------------------
Detached Homes Building Concepts
Figure 6
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

seating, cabanas, and barbeques; and a club lawn. Figure 7, Single-family Residential Recreation Center Concept, shows a rendering of the proposed recreation center within the single-family development.

Multi-Family Residential Component
Proposed multi-family residential development would include the construction of a total of 230 “for lease” apartments and a recreation center. The multi-family residential component would occur on the northern portion of the site on 6.65 acres. The average net density for the multi-family residential development would be 35.77 du/ac.

Apartments
The proposed apartments would consist of a mixture of one- to three-bedroom units (110 one-bedroom units, 95 two-bedroom units, and 25 three-bedroom units) ranging from 657 to 1,371 SF and single-car and two-car tandem garages. The apartments would be split among eight, three-story buildings at a height of up to 52 feet 2 inches. Each building would contain 25 or 35 apartments. The buildings would feature a Santa Barbara architectural style that would include white stucco walls; brown trim, corbels, and garage doors; clack railing; red fabric awnings; red-tile roofing, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. Figure 8, Apartment Building Concept, shows a rendering of the proposed apartment buildings.

Recreation Center
A recreation center would be provided in the center of the multi-family residential development to serve apartment residents. The recreation center would encompass 0.66 acre and would include a clubhouse building, a swimming pool area, and a playground area. The clubhouse building would be two stories and would include a gathering room with a kitchen and lounge, a gym, covered outdoor lounge, a mail room, and apartment manager offices, encompassing a total of 5,577 SF and at a height of 33 feet 1 ½ inches. The clubhouse building would feature a Santa Barbara architectural style with white stucco walls, black trim and railing, red-tiled roofing, and textured black outdoor light fixtures. The swimming pool area would include a community pool, spa, pool deck with seating and cabanas, a refreshment bar, pool shower, and restrooms. The playground area would include a play structure/equipment, tot lot area, and seating. In addition, a fitness lawn and turf would be provided in the recreation center. Figure 9, Apartment Recreation Center Concept, depicts a rendering of the recreation center within the apartment development.

Access, Circulation, and Parking
Access to the single-family residential component would be provided via a primary 60-foot driveway on Dexter Avenue and a secondary 24-foot driveway on Second Street. Internal drives would extend throughout the residential development to provide access to the proposed buildings and associated parking.

The internal drives would be 20 to 32 feet wide.

Access to the multi-family residential component would be provided via two 24-foot driveways on Third Street and one 24-foot driveway on Dexter Avenue for exiting only. Internal drives would extend throughout the residential development to provide access to the proposed buildings and associated parking.

The internal drive aisles would be 24 to 34 feet wide.

Single-family residential parking would be provided via surface parking and individual two-car garages for each residence, for a total of 442 garage spaces, 148 driveway spaces, and 48 open parking spaces (638 total parking spaces). Included within this total are disabled spaces and 20 electric vehicle (EV) ready spaces and 5 EV charging stations (1 accessible). Parking for the multi-family residential component would be provided through 234 garage parking spaces, 2 driveway spaces, and 226 open parking spaces, for a total Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

of 440 parking spaces. Included within this total are 7 disabled spaces and 85 EV ready spaces and 22 EV charging stations (1 accessible).

Landscaping/Hardscape
Landscaping would be provided along the project frontages (Dexter Avenue, Second Street, and Third Street), project entries, proposed buildings, recreation centers, parking areas, and detention basins. A variety of trees (e.g., African sumac, lavender crape myrtle, and California pepper) and shrubs would be planted along the Dexter Avenue, Second Street, and Third Street project frontages and entries. Additional trees (dragon tree, fruitless olive, Bloodgood London plane tree, compact Carolina cherry laurel, and Drake lacebark elm) and shrubs (century plant, blue elf aloe, strawberry tree, bougainvillea, sunset rockrose, mirror plant, atlas fescue, Indian hawthorn, and Huntington carpet rosemary) would be planted internally.

The project would include a total landscape area of approximately 7.50 acres with approximately 765 trees.

Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan, shows the proposed landscape plan for the project.

Proposed hardscape improvements would include enhanced paving, a variety of seating and tables in the recreation and outdoor gathering areas, trellises, overhead shade structures, a tot lot, and decorative lighting and pots.

Walls, Fences, and Signage
Proposed walls and fencing would include a combination of six-foot-high decorative concrete mason walls, six-foot high tubular steel fences, six-foot-high privacy style vinyl fencing, and a six-foot high glass pool fence. Gates would include a rear yard access vinyl gate and a six-foot high tubular steel pedestrian and fire access gate, and a resident only vehicular gates at project entrances. Retaining walls are proposed along portions of the northern and eastern project boundaries, and adjacent to project entry and exit points along Dexter Avenue. Retaining walls would be between 4 and 7 feet along the northern site boundary, between 5 and 9 feet in height along the south side (adjacent to Dexter Avenue), and approximately 3 feet along the east side (adjacent to Second Street). In addition, the project would include some combination retaining, block, and tubular steel walls that would exceed eight feet in height.

Project monument signage would be constructed at the primary project entry into the single-family residential portion of the project along Dexter Avenue and at the primary entry into the multi-family portion of the project site along 3rd Street.

Roadway Improvements
Roadway improvements are proposed along the project frontages of Dexter Avenue, Second Street, and Third Street. Dexter Avenue currently has a paved width of 24 feet within an 80-foot-wide right-of-way (R/W). The project proposes to improve the project’s side of the street to two lanes of traffic, including sidewalk, curb, gutter, landscaping and underground conversion of overhead distribution power lines.

Along Dexter Avenue, six feet of R/W would be vacated by the City. Along Second Street, the project would dedicate an additional 15 feet of R/W on the west side of the roadway and construct curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt. Similarly, the project would dedicate four feet of R/W along the east side of Third Street and construct curb, gutter, sidewalk, and any necessary asphalt to achieve the full R/W width.

Utilities
Proposed utilities would include construction of water, sewer, and storm drain laterals and pipelines, as well as connections to existing electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lines. Water service would be provided by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) through a lateral to an existing 24- HELIX
Environmental Planning ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig7_SingleFamilyRecCenter.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK Dexter Village
Source: Urban Arena 2025
Single-family Residential Recreation Center Concept
Figure 7
Dexter Village
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig8_AptBuilding.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK Source: Urban Arena 2025
Apartment Building Concept
Figure 8
HELIX
Environmental Planning --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dexter Village
I:\PROJECTS\L\LakeElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCoveApts\Map\ISMND\Fig9_AptRecCenter.indd 00987.00010.001 04/04/25 -RK Source: Urban Arena 2025
Apartment Recreation Center Concept
Figure 9
Dexter Village
04/04/25 -RK 00987.00010.001

DEXTER AVENUE
apePlan.indd ts\Map\ISMND\Fig10_Landsc

PLANT SCHEDULE

SYMBOL BOTANICAL I COMMON NAME CONT QTY
,,. SHRUBS
AMEr<iOINA/CENlURY r'>RM'AJ:NA OOAC".O I nRA<'.ON TRfF 5(",AI M;AVf. PlANT veAp
1 eElsinoreCity_00987\00010_TheCo
Al.OE.X 'BWE ELF' I B.t.UE ElF ALOE
LAG[RSTROCMJA INDICA 'LAVCNDrn' / LAVCNDER CRAJ1'C M'l'RTlC ,24• 00)( 121

ARBUTUS VNEOO 'COMPACT A' I COMPACT STRAWBERRY TREE
OLEA EUROPAEA 'FRUITLES:S' J FRUrn.ESS OUVE 36" BOX 2J DOUGAINV!UEA)( 'TORCH GlOW' /lORCH GLOW BOUGAJNVIUEA CtsiTUS X F't.JLVERulENlUS 'SUN5ET' /SUNSE"T ROO:RQSE
PI.ATANUS X AC~FOUA 'l!LOOOGOOO' / BlOODGOOD LONDON l'lANETREll 24" BOX 27 CoPROSMA KIRKI~ / CJl:l:.EPIPIIO MIRfK)R Pl.ANT
PRU NUS CAAOUNII\NA 'COMPACT A' I COM PA.CT CAROLINA CHERRY lAUREL 1SGAL 3CM FESTUCA MMREI / All.AS, FESCUE RHAl'H!Ol£PIS IND'CA 'PINKIE' I P1NKJE INDII\N HAWTHO~
RHUS LANCE.A I AFRICAN SUMAC.. 24" BOX •• JIQSMAAINUS 'HUNTINGTON CARPEr / HUNTINOTQ_N RCfE" TS\L\Lak
Of.RCINAUS CARPET
SCHIN\IS MOlil / CAllfORNrA PEPPER 36" BOX 11
CJEOI:\PR
0 ULMUS PARVIFOUA 'DRAKE'/ DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BO)( ..

Source: Urban Arena 2025
HELIX
Environmental Planning --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conceptual Landscape Plan Figure 10
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

inch line in Third Street, a proposed 30-inch water main in Dexter Avenue that would connect to the existing water line in Third Street, and a proposed 12-inch line in Second Street that would connect to the proposed water line in Dexter Avenue. An on-site system of 8-inch water lines would be installed along internal access drives.

Sewer service would be provided by EVMWD through several on-site 8-inch lines within internal drives and 6-inch lines within internal alleys that would connect to a proposed 8-inch line in Dexter Avenue.

Proposed storm drain facilities would include three detention basins: a detention basin in the southwest corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Third Street intersection), a detention basin in the south central portion of the site, and a detention basin in the southeast corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Second Street intersection). The project would also construct an inlet in the north central portion of the site that would capture off-flows from the north and a 78-inch storm drain pipe in Dexter Avenue that would connect to an existing 96-inch storm drain in Dexter near its intersection with Third Street. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications services would be provided via connections to existing lines in Dexter Avenue.

Project Phasing and Construction Schedule
The project would be constructed in two phases, with the single-family residential component occurring first followed by the multi-family residential development. The entire site, however, would be mass graded during the first phase. Grading and construction of the single-family development would take approximately 18 months, and construction of the multi-family development would take approximately 14 months. Grading would be balanced on site, resulting in no import or export of soil.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Dexter Village

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Nancy Huynh, Principal Planner (951) 674-3124, ext. 924

4. Project Location: Northeast of Dexter Avenue between 2nd and 3rd Street.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Fairbrook Communities LLC, 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612

6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)

7. Zoning: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)

8. Description of Project: See project description in Section II.B, Project Description, above.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See project location and setting in Section II.A, Project Location and Setting, above.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CA2000002), in addition to related City requirements for storm water and erosion control.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notification to six Tribes on March 5, 2025. The Pechanga and Soboba Tribes requested consultation. The initial consultation meeting was held with Pechanga on April 22, 2025 and Soboba on April 17, 2025. Subsequent consultation meetings were held with Pechanga on June 24, 2025 and October 14,2025, and with Soboba on July 2, 2025. Soboba concluded consultation on July 2, 2025. At the June 24, 2025 consultation meeting with Pechanga, an additional mitigation measure, MM CUL-8, was requested to be added for supplemental reburial areas. A follow-up consultation was scheduled with Soboba on October 8, 2025 to ensure that they also agreed to the additional mitigation measure. Soboba agreed and accepted the additional mitigation measure. Pechanga concluded consultation on October 30, 2025.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
C. DETERMINATION
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Nancy Huynh, Principal Planner Date
November 5, 2025
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled
by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section
452651104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest uses?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest
land use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would
the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project
result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public services/facilities?
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would
the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section VII, References, of this document.

I. AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City’s aesthetic setting is characterized by urbanized development of various densities occurring within varied topographical features and interspersed with undeveloped natural areas. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City include Lake Elsinore, portions of the Cleveland National Forest, rugged hillside land, distant mountains and ridgelines, rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, parkland, and buildings of historical and cultural significance.

The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (General Plan) identifies landscaped viewshed units of scenic vistas that include the lake, urban areas around the lake, and the rugged vacant hills in the northern and eastern portion of the City. Specifically, the City comprises 15 landscape viewshed units as indicated on General Plan Figure 4.9, Landscape Viewshed Units (City 2011b). Each of these units have distinct viewsheds defined by man-made structures and physiographical features such as landform, water, or cultural features, tourism, commercial and recreation, and related uses and an open space buffer. The project site is within the southwestern portion of viewshed unit 11. The General Plan describes this area as mainly developed with residential and commercial uses with a public high school.

Due to the importance of Lake Elsinore as the largest natural lake in southern California, scenic resources were addressed in the General Plan by identifying public vantage points of the lake throughout the City.

Vantage points identified in Figure 4.10, Viewshed and Vantagepoints, of the General Plan include northbound Interstate (I-) 15, Ortega Highway, the Lake Elsinore Recreation Area and Campground, the baseball stadium, the boat launch on the eastern edge of the lake, and the Aloha Pier lookout. No vantage points occur within or near the project site. The closest vantage point, Aloha Pier lookout, is approximately

1.4 miles to the southwest. While the project site is identified in the General Plan as within the Lake Elsinore viewshed, the project’s proposed development would not obstruct views of Lake Elsinore from any of the vantage points identified in the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan Resource Protection & Preservation Element; General Plan EIR) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less Than Significant Impact) California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the legislature in 1963 to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) currently identifies both I-15 and SR 74 as eligible for listing as state scenic highways, but they are not yet officially designated (Caltrans 2025).

The project site is located approximately 0.1 mile northeast of I-15 and is visible from portions of I-15. SR 74 is approximately 0.25 mile to the north of the project site and views of the project site from SR 74 are mostly obstructed by intervening development. Although the site is located near both of these highways Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

and would involve the removal of some existing ornamental trees during construction, new trees would be planted on site as part of the project that would result in a net increase in trees compared to the existing condition. The project would not substantially modify views along I-15 or SR 74 such that they would detract from the visual attributes that contribute to their eligible designation as potentially protected resources. There are no notable rock outcroppings or historic buildings within or adjacent to the project site. As such, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California State Scenic Highway System Map [Caltrans 2025]) c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) CEQA defines the term “urbanized area” to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) data from 2023 indicates that the City has a population of 73,028 and the adjacent City of Wildomar has a population of 37,087 (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). Thus, the project site is considered to be located within an urbanized area and is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The project site is currently designated (in the General Plan) and zoned as Commercial Mixed Use. The project site is located within the southeast area of the Business District of the City, which is intended to become a commercial and industrial hub for the community. Limited Industrial land uses straddle the Temescal Wash floodway south of I-15, while the area surrounding the proposed project is primarily designated General Commercial and Commercial Mixed Use. Development applications are reviewed by the City for consistency with the goals, policies, and development standards of the General Plan and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). According to the General Plan, residential densities for the CMU designation shall be between 7 and 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposed project would have an average net density of 20.18 du/ac. The project, however, would utilize a density bonus, as allowed by California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918). Chapter 17.134 of the LEMC establishes development standards for the CMU zone. The project would comply with the front and street front setback requirements set forth in the LEMC. There is no building height limit in the CMU zone.

The project would also comply with the LEMC’s landscape improvement requirements. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable development standards related to aesthetics.

Section 4.8.3 of the General Plan addresses aesthetics goals, including: maintaining a natural and built environment that is visually pleasing to City residents and visitors; preserving valued public views throughout the City; and minimizing activities, development, and landform modification that could distract viewers from the City’s visual character. The following policies from Section 4.8.3 apply to the proposed project:
• Policy 11.1: For new developments and redevelopment, encourage the maintenance and incorporation of existing mature trees and other substantial vegetation on the site, whether naturally-occurring or planted, into the landscape design. • Policy 11.3: Where appropriate, encourage new planting of native and/or non-invasive ornamental plants to enhance the scenic setting of public and private lands.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

• Policy 12.1: Encourage development designs and concepts that provide public views of Lake Elsinore and local ridgelines through proper siting, building design, and landscape design. • Policy 12.3: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate views of Lake Elsinore from roadways and other public spaces that provide residents and tourists with scenic vistas to the water, marinas, and lakeshore activities.

During project construction, the few existing ornamental trees and shrubs on the project site would be removed and replaced by approximately 765 new trees, including native and non-invasive species. Because the project site is relatively flat and views of Lake Elsinore are obstructed by I-15, the project will not provide scenic vistas. The project therefore would be consistent with these applicable General Plan policies related to scenic quality.

The project is consistent with the applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan Resource Protection & Preservation Element; General Plan Business District) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the City’s General Plan, light and glare impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory are of concern to the City. Areas of light pollution impacts have been identified through a “ring analysis,” where primary impacts to the Observatory are within a 30-mile radius, and secondary impacts are within a radius of up to 45 miles. According to General Plan Figure 4.12, the project site is located within the 45-mile secondary impact radius. The project site is currently undeveloped, with no existing on-site sources of light or glare. Existing off-site sources of night lighting attributed to nearby residential and commercial development include streetlamps, accent and security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights.

Nighttime project lighting would be similar to the existing nighttime lighting of surrounding uses. In addition, the project would be required to comply with applicable sections of the LEMC with regard to lighting, including but not limited to:
• Section 117.134.080(E) (CMU District) requires that adequate internal and external lighting be provided for security purposes. Lighting shall be energy efficient, stationary, downcast, and deflected away from residential units, adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. • Section 117.148.110 (Parking Requirements) requires that adequate parking lot lighting for security purposes be required and maintained to effectively illuminate the parking area of all developments.

Lighting shall be located and designed so to preclude the direct glare of light shining onto adjacent property, streets, or into the sky above a horizontal plane passing through the luminaire.

Sources of glare result primarily during the day from parked cars located in large parking lots and from sunlight reflected from window glazing on buildings. The proposed project would introduce new sources of daytime glare due to vehicles traveling to and from the site, however most of the parking at the project site would be within garage spaces, minimizing the potential glare from parked cars. Proposed building materials and design elements would comply with applicable development standards and would undergo design review to ensure that no adverse glare effects would occur. The trees and landscaping planted along the perimeter of the project site would also minimize glare effects.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Based on the above considerations, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and potential impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. Unique farmland is land, other than prime farmland, that has combined conditions to produce sustained high quality and high yields of specialty crops. Farmland of Statewide Importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by State law. In some areas that are not identified as having national or statewide importance, land is considered Farmland of Local Importance. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maintained by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) is the responsible state agency for overseeing the farmland classification.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR (City 2011c), agricultural uses constitute approximately

0.8 percent of the City’s total acreage. Some of this existing agricultural land, as well as vacant land used for purposes other than agriculture, are designated by the DOC FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance (554 acres within the City), Grazing Land (827 acres within the City), and Unique Farmland (25 acres within the City) (City 2011c). Remaining land is considered Urban/Built-Up Land or Other Land, reflecting its developed uses or other characteristics making it unsuitable for agriculture. The project site is a vacant property that is designated by the FMMP as Farmland of Local Importance and Other Land (DOC 2025).

The northern and southern portions of the site are designated Farmland of Local Importance, and the central portion of the site is designated Other Land. The DOC defines Farmland of Local Importance as land of importance to the local economy that is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide, or Unique Farmland. The DOC defines Other Land as land that cannot fit into any other category but is not suitable for agriculture, such as low-density urban development, brush areas not appropriate for livestock grazing, or strip mines. The site is currently not used for agriculture nor is it planned to be used for agriculture based on its existing land use and zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR; FMMP [DOC 2025])
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use; in return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The Williamson Act is only applicable to parcels within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland, or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Prime Farmland. The Williamson Act is designed to prevent the premature and unnecessary conversion of open space lands and agricultural areas to urban uses.

As stated in Item II(a), the project site is in an area classified by the CDC as Farmland of Local Importance and Other Land. No farmland or agricultural resources are present. The project site is zoned as Commercial Mixed Use and does not allow for agricultural land uses. Further, the City’s General Plan EIR indicates that there are no Williamson Act agricultural preserves within the City boundaries. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR; Zoning Map)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)? (No Impact)
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” as land that can support ten percent native cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. PRC Section 4526 defies “timberland” as other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Based on these definitions, no forest land or timberland occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. Moreover, there is no land zoned as forest land or timberland that exists within the project site or within its vicinity. There are scattered trees throughout the site; however, there are no concentration of trees within the site that would constitute a forest. Moreover, there is no land zoned as forest land or timberland that exists within the project site or within its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause a rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.
(Sources: Zoning Map; Public Resources Code Sections 12220(g) and 4526) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? (No Impact) As stated in Item II(c) above, implementation of the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because no forest land exists on the project site or in the surrounding area.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, Zoning Map; Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land use? (No Impact)
There are no agricultural operations or timberland production operations within the project site or vicinity.

As stated in Items II(a) and II(c) above, implementation of the project would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Zoning Map)
III. AIR QUALITY
This section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report prepared for the project (LSA, 2025a; Appendix A).
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB (SCAQMD 2022). The AQMP is a series of plans adopted for the purpose of reaching short- and long-term goals for those pollutants. The SoCAB is designated as a ‘nonattainment’ area because the SCAQMD does not meet federal and/or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

The SoCAB is designated as in attainment or unclassifiable attainment (expected to be meeting the standard despite a lack of monitoring data) for all federal air quality standards except for the 1-hour ozone, 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The SoCAB is also designated as in nonattainment for state air quality standards for 1-hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and additionally is in nonattainment of state PM10 standards. The regional air quality plan, the 2022 AQMP, outlines measures to reduce emissions of ozone and PM2.5.

Whereas reducing PM concentrations is achieved by reducing emissions of PM2.5 to the atmosphere, reducing ozone concentrations is achieved by reducing the precursors of photochemical formation of ozone, VOC, and NOX.

The land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP are based on the regional growth forecasts included in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, and (2) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.

The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not defined as significant. In addition, the proposed project would not require a change to the General Plan land use designation or the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

The other factor used to determine if a project would conflict with implementation of the 2022 AQMP is determining if the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2022 AQMP. NAAQS and CAAQS violations could occur if project emissions exceed regional significance thresholds or local significance thresholds. As described below under Item III(b), construction and operational emissions from the project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional and local significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2022 AQMP or applicable portions of the SIP.

Impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: 2022 Air Quality Management Plan [SCAQMD 2022]; Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A)
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.

As discussed in Item III(a) above, the SoCAB is classified as in attainment for all criterion pollutants except for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SoCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal AAQS for the 1- hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, and PM2.5 standards and a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards under state standards. Ozone is not emitted directly but is a result of atmospheric activity on precursors. NOX and ROG are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone.

The project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation. Construction activities that would generate emissions are anticipated to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Operational sources of emissions would include mobile sources (vehicle travel), energy sources (natural gas use), and area sources (landscape equipment use, consumer products, and architectural coatings). Both construction and operation would result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The SCAQMD has adopted significance thresholds, referred to as mass emissions thresholds, to assess the regional impact of air pollutant emissions in the SoCAB, as identified below in Table 1, Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds. If the project’s criteria pollutant and precursor emissions during construction and operation are below the SCAQMD daily regional thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant.

Table 1
Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds
(pounds per day)
Pollutant Construction Operations
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Source: LSA 2025a
Construction Emissions
The project would result in criteria pollutant emissions during its various construction activities, including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Dust is typically the Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions.” Fugitive dust emissions include PM10 and PM2.5. The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities, per SCAQMD Rule 403. In addition to dust-related emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Due to project phasing, the entire project site would be mass graded during the first phase of construction along with building construction, paving, and architectural coating of the single-family residential component. The second phase of construction would include building construction, paving, and architectural coating associated with the multi-family component. The estimated construction emissions calculated for the proposed project are presented below in Table 2, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The complete CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Table 2
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions1
(pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Construction Emissions
2026 1.4 48.9 36.8 0.1 9.0 5.0
2027 33.7 21.2 24.2 <0.1 2.7 1.2
TOTAL Phase 1 Maximum
Daily Emissions

33.7 48.9 36.8 0.1 9.0 5.0
Phase 2 Construction Emissions
2027 34.1 22.2 28.3 <0.1 4.3 1.6
2028 34.1 22.1 27.2 <0.1 4.3 1.6
TOTAL Phase 2 Maximum
Daily Emissions

34.1 22.2 28.3 <0.1 4.3 1.6
Maximum Emissions during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2 20272 67.8 43.4 52.5 <0.1 7.0 2.8
Maximum Daily Emissions 67.8 48.9 52.2 0.1 9.0 5.0
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA 2025a 1 Emissions were rounded to the nearest whole number. Emissions reported as <1 indicate that emissions were calculated to be less than 0.5 pound per day. 2 Maximum emissions of VOCs and CO occurred during the overlapping of building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 2, maximum daily construction emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Long-term air pollutant operational emission impacts are those typically associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle and truck trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), area sources (e.g., architectural coatings Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

and the use of landscape maintenance equipment). The proposed project would not include natural gas; therefore, energy emissions would not occur. Mobile source emissions include VOC and NOx emissions that contribute to the formation of ozone. Additionally, PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed project are shown below in Table 3, Summary of Project Operational Emissions. The complete CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Table 3
Summary of Project Operational Emissions
(pounds per day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Single-Family Residential Development
Mobile Sources 7.6 7.8 69.4 0.2 16.3 4.2
Area Sources 9.3 0.1 12.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL Single-Family
Emissions 16.9 7.9 81.9 0.2 16.3 4.2
Multi-Family Residential Development
Mobile Sources 5.9 6.0 54.2 0.1 13.3 3.4
Area Sources 6.5 0.2 17.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL Multi-Family
Emissions 12.4 6.2 71.3 0.1 13.3 3.4
Combined Emissions
TOTAL Maximum Daily
Emissions 29.3 14.1 153.2 0.3 29.6 7.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA 2025a
ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 3, operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Concurrent Construction and Operations
The project would be constructed in two phases, which would result in one portion of the project being operational while other the portion is being constructed. Table 4, Concurrent Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions, shows the concurrent emissions estimates for the project’s construction and operational phases expected to overlap. The complete CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Table 4
Concurrent Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions (pounds per day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Single-Family Residential Operational Emissions
Mobile Sources 7.6 7.8 69.4 0.2 16.3 4.2
Area Sources 9.3 0.1 12.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL Single-Family
Emissions

16.9 7.9 81.9 0.2 16.3 4.2
Multi-Family Residential Construction Emissions
Year 2027 34.1 22.2 28.3 <0.1 4.3 1.6
Year 2028 34.1 22.1 27.2 <0.1 4.3 1.6
Combined Construction and Operational Emissions
Year 2027 51.0 30.1 110.2 0.2 20.6 5.8
Year 2028 51.0 30.0 109.1 0.2 20.6 5.8
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA 2025a
NOTE: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 4, concurrent construction and operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, concurrent construction and project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).

Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single familyresidence located approximately 81 feet north and 87 feet west of the project site and the Lake Elsinore Hills RV Park located approximately 45 feet to the southeast.

The following analysis addresses potential impacts to sensitive receptors associated with localized criteria pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and CO hot spots.

Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level, called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that could occur, beyond which the project would cause or contribute measurably to an exceedance of the most Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs are developed based on the ambient pollutant concentrations for each source receptor area (SRA), distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and size of the project site, and are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility.

The LST methodology translates the concentration standards into emissions thresholds that are a function of project site area, source to receptor distance (specifically, within 25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 meters), and the location within the SoCAB. The LST methodology limits the emissions of consideration to those generated from on-site activities and is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific localized air quality modeling be performed.

The project is within SRA 25, Lake Elsinore. The closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 45 feet to the southeast. Project construction and operation emissions were compared to the LST screening tables in SRA 25, based on an 82-foot source-receptor distance and a disturbed acreage of 4.5 acres during construction and 5.0 acres during operation. .

The maximum daily localized emissions from project construction and LSTs are presented in Table 5, Maximum Localized Daily Emissions.

Table 5
Maximum Localized Daily Emissions1
(pounds per day)
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOx Threshold 348.0 371.0
Project NOx Emissions 48.8 1.0
Significant? No No
CO Threshold 1,821.0 1,965.0
Project CO Emissions 35.3 35.8
Significant? No No
PM10 Threshold 12.0 4.0
Project PM10 Emissions 8.8 1.5
Significant? No No
PM2.5 Threshold 7.3 2.0
Project PM2.5 Emissions 5.0 0.4
Significant? No No
Source: LSA 2025a; SCAQMD 2008. 1 Emissions are assessed against the threshold for 1-acre project sites with sensitive receptors within 25 meters of the project site boundary.

NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As indicated in Table 5, project emissions would be below the applicable LSTs for construction and operation, and LST impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The Health and Safety Code (§39655, subd. (a).) defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Of particular concern statewide are dieselexhaust particulate matter (DPM) emissions. DPM was established as a TAC in 1998 and is estimated to represent a majority of the cancer risk from TACs statewide (based on the statewide average). Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.

Construction
Construction of the project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment. Other construction-related sources of DPM include material delivery trucks and construction worker vehicles; however, these sources are minimal relative to construction equipment. Not all construction worker vehicles would be diesel-fueled and most DPM emissions associated with material delivery trucks and construction worker vehicles would occur off-site. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with DPM during construction that could result in excess cancer risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
The CARB handbook indicates that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day should be avoided when possible. The southwestern boundary of the project site is located 590 feet from the nearest I-15 travel lanes. The residential buildings and exterior use areas are located 665 feet or further from the nearest I-15 travel lanes. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with DPM during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available.

Ambient CO levels monitored at Lake Elsinore station, the closest station to the project site, showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 1.3 parts per million (ppm; the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 0.8 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) during the past 3 years. The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis.

According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (LSA 2025c Appendix J]), the project would generate approximately 229 a.m. peak hour trips and 295 p.m. peak hour trips. Both baseline (2018) and cumulative (2045) scenarios were analyzed to estimate project generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The baseline project generated VMT per service population is 22.8 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population is

31.2 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold. Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Therefore, given the low level of CO concentrations in the project area, and lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

(Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A; Traffic Impact Study [LSA 2025c], Appendix I)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 and 41705 prohibit emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices and regulatory requirements (e.g., CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures 13 [CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485], idling time is not to exceed five minutes unless more time is required per engine manufacturers’ specifications or for safety reasons) would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction.

SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” The proposed residential uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (e.g., those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section is based on the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis prepared for the project (Cadre Environmental, Inc. 2025; Appendix B) to identify on-site biological resources and assess the project’s consistency with the goals and objectives of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) The MSHCP Compliance Analysis evaluated potential impacts to special status plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site. A summary of the status of sensitive species within the project site and vicinity, as well as potential impacts to these species, are presented below.

Sensitive Plant Species
Sensitive plant species are those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); state listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non-Covered Species, Criteria Area Species, and/or Narrow Endemic Plant Species; and/or are California Native Plant Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Society (CNPS) List 1A, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS’ Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. The project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP criteria area or narrow endemic plant species and no sensitive plant species were observed during biological surveys. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to sensitive plant species.

Sensitive Animal Species
Sensitive animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS; considered sensitive animals by the CDFW; and/or included in the MSHCP as Covered Species, Non-Covered Species, and/or Criteria Area Species. The project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibians or mammals and no sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected during biological surveys, so impacts to sensitive amphibian and mammalian species would be considered less than significant. No suitable habitat for sensitive riparian birds is present on or adjacent to the project site and none were observed during biological surveys.

The project site occurs partially within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl (BUOW; Athene cunicularia), a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern as shown in Attachment C of the MSHCP Compliance Analysis. Accordingly, a BUOW habitat assessment was conducted on June 10, 2022. Suitable BUOW burrows/features larger than four inches in diameter and foraging habitat were documented within and adjacent to the project site. Due to the presence of suitable burrowing owl habitat on site, four focused burrowing owl surveys (in addition to the initial focused burrow survey) were conducted in June 2022 to determine the presence/absence and status of the species within and adjacent to the project Site. No BUOW or characteristic sign (such as white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets) were detected within or immediately adjacent to the project site during the 2022 survey effort.

Therefore, BUOW is currently presumed absent from the study area. However, consistent with the requirements of the MSCHP, a measure requiring a pre-construction survey and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of BUOW (if BUOWs are observed) is included as Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 below. With the implementation of MM BIO-1, the project would not result in significant impacts to BUOW.

The project site falls within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Fee Area outlined in the Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Although this species was not observed on or adjacent to the site during biological surveys, the project applicant is required to pay the fees pursuant to County Ordinance 663.10 for the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area as established and implemented by the County of Riverside.

Nesting Migratory Birds
Given the location of Lake Elsinore within the City, there are a variety of birds that migrate seasonally through the City on the Pacific Flyway, as well as certain birds that permanently reside locally. On-site vegetation communities, including non-native grassland and ornamental trees represent potential nesting habitat for common and MSHCP-covered sensitive bird and raptor species. Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests if ground disturbance occurs during the identified breeding season (between February 1 and August 31). Implementation of MM-BIO-2 would ensure that potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are avoided during construction.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures:

MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction focused species surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the site during pre-construction surveys and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, the City shall consult with the CDFW and prepare and implement a project-specific Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and implemented prior to activities that could affect burrowing owl within the project site. To avoid take, impacted individuals shall be relocated outside of the impact area by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities using passive or active methodologies approved by CDFW. The relocation shall occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated.

MM BIO-2: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds. To avoid violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31).

If construction activities are to occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the commencement of construction. A qualified biologist shall perform the nesting survey to ascertain whether there are active raptor nests within 500 feet of the project footprint or other protected bird nests within 300 feet of the project footprint. If no nests are found, no further action is required. If active nests are found, their locations shall be flagged and then mapped onto an aerial photograph of the site and recorded with a GPS unit. An appropriate avoidance buffer (size of buffer depending upon the species and the proposed work activity) shall be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist. No work shall occur within the avoidance buffer, and a qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor bird behavior and ensure no disturbance to the nest occurs, as necessary. If disturbance is detected (e.g., alarm calling, flight from the nest) as determined by the qualified biologist, work in the area should halt immediately until such time as the young have left the nest of their own volition. Work may take place on other areas of the project site as long as the activity does not likewise result in disturbance to the nest or nesting bird, as determined by a qualified biologist. (Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MSHCP Compliance Analysis conducted for the project involved a general habitat assessment that included vegetation mapping and an MSHCP riparian/riverine and vernal pool resource assessment. The results of the field surveys indicated that non-native grassland habitat (22.09 acres) and ornamental trees (0.96 acre) occur on site. There are no riparian/riverine habitats or other sensitive natural communities on or immediately adjacent to the property. As such, the project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

The project site is located in the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, but not within a criteria cell; therefore, while the project is required to show MSHCP compliance through specific habitat assessments, applicable biological surveys, and provision of an MSHCP compliance analysis, no on-site conservation is required.

The project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
A jurisdictional delineation was conducted on the project site and a surrounding 300-foot area on September 20, 2023 to identify riparian/riverine areas and other habitat potentially under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW.

No jurisdictional features were identified on the project site. While there are two areas of topographic relief and low points, no bed and bank were observed and no larger hydraulic connection occurs. Thus, these areas do not meet the definition of Waters of the Unites States or Waters of the State. As such, no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) occur within or near the project area. Additionally, there are no MSHCP riparian/riverine resources on the project site as no evidence of vernal pools, seasonal depressions, seasonally inundated road ruts, or other wetland features were identified on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands or MSHCP riparian/riverine resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) Wildlife Movement
No known linkages or other potential wildlife movement corridors or travel routes occur within the project area. The project site is an isolated parcel of non-native grassland habitat and ornamental trees and mostly surrounded by roadways and development. The site is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, non-contiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Migratory Species
Development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. Although suitable habitat for nesting birds on the study area is limited, trees located throughout the study area could provide habitat for protected nesting bird species. In order to address the potential loss or disturbance of nesting habitat for migratory birds, the Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

project would implement MM BIO-2 during construction. With implementation of MM BIO-2, impacts to migratory bird species would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-2
(Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
The proposed project would be consistent with local policies and ordinances related to biological resources.

The LEMC includes a City Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 1256) that protects the City’s streetscape and trees. There are ornamental trees growing along the southwestern boundary of the site.

These trees would be removed as part of the proposed project. As part of the project landscaping, tree spacing, distance from curbs and sidewalks, and other aesthetic guidelines shall be followed in accordance with LEMC Ordinance 1256. The City has also determined that certain species of palm trees in the family Palmaceae are locally significant resources through the City Significant Palm Tree Ordinance (LEMC Ordinance 1160); however, no palm trees covered under the ordinance occur on site. As such, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Western Riverside County MSHCP
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional effort that includes unincorporated County of Riverside lands and multiple cities in the western portion of the County, including the City. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system, The MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003 by the County Board of Supervisors. The Incidental Take Permit was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004.

The project site is located in the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP, but not within a criteria cell; therefore, while the project is required to show MSHCP compliance through specific habitat assessments, applicable biological surveys, and provision of an MSHCP consistency analysis, no on-site conservation is required.

An MSHCP Compliance Analysis was prepared for the project (Cadre 2025) that addressed project consistency with applicable goals, objectives, and requirements of the MSCHP. The project site is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, Elsinore Plan Area, Subunit 3 Elsinore. The MSHCP divides its Area Plans into Subunits and further into Criteria Cells with specific conservation objectives identified for each. The project site is not within or adjacent to a Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area; therefore, the project is not subject to cell criteria identified in the MSHCP. The project site is not located within an MSHCP survey area for criteria area plant species, narrow endemic plant species, amphibian species, or Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

mammal species. Therefore, the project would not be subject to survey requirements of corresponding MSHCP Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2. The project site is partially located within the MSHCP survey area for BUOW. As discussed in Item IV(a), focused BUOW surveys were conducted on the project site in June 2022 and no BUOW or signs of BUOW were detected during the focused surveys. However, consistent with the requirements of the MSCHP, a pre-construction BUOW would be required and is included as MM BIO-1 and as such, the project would be incompliance with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

The project would not result in impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine resources, vernal pools, or riparian birds. Thus, the project would be in compliance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

The MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating commercial, mixed uses, and residential developments in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. Thus, the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines are not applicable to the project.

The Fuels Management guidelines contained in MSHCP Section 6.4 are intended to address brush management activities around new development within or adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas. As the project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area, the Fuels Management guidelines are not applicable to the project.

The project is subject to MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees, as established by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and administered by the City, as a condition of approval for occupancy. The development fee supports habitat conservation planning that mitigates for development that the City permits. The project would be in compliance with the development fee requirement.

Based on the above analysis, the project would not conflict with the applicable provisions of the MSHCP with implementation of the MM BIO-1.

Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP
The project site falls within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) Fee Area outlined in the Riverside County SKR HCP. The project applicant is required to pay the fees pursuant to County Ordinance 663.10 for the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area as established and implemented by the County of Riverside. With payment of the required fee, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the SKR HCP.

Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1
(Sources: MSHCP Biological Resources Compliance Analysis [Cadre Environmental 2025], Appendix B) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) 2025a; Appendix C) to identify potentially significant cultural resources within the project study area. The investigation included a records search, literature review, examination of historic maps, and an archaeological field survey of the project area.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (No Impact)
A records search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside on May 9, 2022. The search identified 37 resources located within a one-mile radius of the project, none of which are in the subject property. Of the 37 resources, 30 are historic cultural resources and consist of railroad material, residences, ranch properties, a packing house, a café and casino, a cemetery, foundations, trash scatter, and isolates. The remaining seven resources are prehistoric resources consisting of bedrock milling sites and isolates. None of the resources were recorded within the project site. A review of historic maps indicates that the property was historically used for agriculture. The first structure to appear on the site is a residential structure built between 1962 and 1967. An additional structure is visible in aerial photographs by 1978, but between 2006 and 2009, all structures were removed, and the site has since remained vacant land. A Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission was negative for recorded sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance. Further, no cultural resources were observed within the project area during the pedestrian survey conducted for Cultural Resources Assessment. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment [BFSA 2025a])
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed above in Item V(a), no known archaeological resources are present at the project site and none were observed during the archaeological field survey. A Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was negative for recorded sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance. However, due to the cultural significance of Lake Elsinore associated with past human occupation and use of the area, there is potential for encountering buried archaeological resources during project construction. As such, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5 would be implemented and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

MM CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. The Property Owner/Developer or a successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:

1. Ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the Project Archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative(s) from consulting tribes (or other appropriate ethnic/cultural group representative), and the Community Development Director or their designee to discuss the significance of the find.

2. The developer shall call the Community Development Director or their designee immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource to convene the meeting.

3. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the Community Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource.

4. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until a meeting has been convened with the aforementioned parties and a decision is made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director or their designee, as to the appropriate mitigation measures.

5. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or reburial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location measure.

6. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe(s), and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

7. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.” Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Lake Elsinore upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.

MM CUL-2: Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified and certified Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) that addresses the details of activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be created in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) and provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP provides direction as to how the project mitigation measures will be implemented. The CRMP requires that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures in place, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. These measures shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

Archaeological Monitor - An adequate number of qualified monitors shall be present to ensure that earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during grading Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

activities for areas to be monitored including off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor.

Cultural Sensitivity Training - The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for construction personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and other appropriate protocols. This is mandatory training and construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site.

A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Unanticipated Resources - In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor(s) shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The Community Development Director or their designee must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods.

Phase IV Report - A final archaeological report shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist and submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee prior to grading final. The report shall follow County of Riverside requirements and shall include at a minimum: a discussion of the monitoring methods and techniques used; the results of the monitoring program including artifacts recovered; an inventory of resources recovered; updated DPR forms for sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and additional recommendations. A final copy shall be submitted to the City, Project Applicant, the Eastern Information Center, and the Tribe.

MM CUL-3: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:

One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Community Development Department:

1. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

2. Relocation of the resources on the Project property. The measures for relocation shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from future impacts by means of a deed restriction or other form of protection (e.g., conservation easement) in order to demonstrate avoidance in perpetuity.

Relocation shall not occur until legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains, as they are excluded. Reburial processes shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.

3. If relocation is not agreed upon by the Consulting Tribes, then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.

MM CUL-4: Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall contact the consulting Native American Tribe(s) that have requested monitoring through consultation with the City during the AB 52 and/or the Senate Bill (SB) 18 process (“Monitoring Tribes”). The applicant shall coordinate with the Tribe(s) to develop individual Tribal Monitoring Agreement(s). A copy of the signed agreement(s) shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) including the project’s approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground-disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains/burial goods discovered on the site per the Tribe(s) customs and traditions and the City’s mitigation measures/conditions of approval. The Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist.

MM CUL-5: Phase IV Report. Upon completion of the implementation phase, a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted that complies with the Riverside County Planning Department’s requirements for such reports for ground-disturbing activities associated with this grading permit. The report shall follow the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work posted on the County website. The report shall include results of feature relocation or residue analysis required as well as evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting. (Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment [BFSA 2025a], Appendix C) Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project is not located on or adjacent to a known formal or informal cemetery. The archaeological records search identified one historical cemetery within a one-mile radius of the project. However, because disturbance is only anticipated on the project site, no impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are expected. Furthermore, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search was negative for recorded sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance. In the unlikely event that unknown human remains are uncovered during project construction, MM CUL-6 through MM CUL-8, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would be implemented to ensure that the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

MM CUL-6: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop activities within 100 feet of the find. The project applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the applicant shall comply with the state law relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours and the NAHC will make the determination of most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. In the event that the applicant and the MLD disagree regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC, if requested (see PRC Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burial at one location constitutes a cemetery (Section 81 00), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

MM CUL-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Location. It is understood by the parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

MM CUL-8: Supplemental Reburial Areas. Should the project area be separated into different phases of development or separated and sold to alternative or additional developers, then supplemental reburial areas will be determined in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians for the reburial of Tribal Cultural Resources at least 30 days before issuance of grading permits.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

(Sources: Cultural Resources Assessment [BFSA 2025a], Appendix C; Public Resources Code Section 5097.98)
VI. ENERGY
This section is partially based on an energy use analysis contained in the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report prepared for the project (LSA, 2025a; Appendix A). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Energy use associated with a project typically includes fuel (gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas during construction activities and operations. It typically includes the following sources: (1) construction-related vehicle and equipment energy use, (2) transportation energy use from people traveling to and from the project area during operation, and (3) building and facility energy use of the proposed project during operation.

Construction-related Energy Use
Energy use during construction would occur from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (diesel and/or gasoline). Therefore, the analysis of energy use during construction focuses on fuel consumption.

Construction trucks and vendor trucks hauling materials to and from the project site would be anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction workers traveling to and from the project site would be anticipated to use gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and the travel mode.

Estimates of fuel consumption (diesel fuel and gasoline) from construction equipment, construction trucks, and construction worker vehicles were based on default construction equipment assumptions and trip estimates from CalEEMod and fuel efficiencies from EMFAC2021. Total fuel consumption estimates are presented in Table 6, Estimated Construction Energy Consumption. The complete CalEEMod outputs and energy calculations are provided in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Table 6
Estimated Construction Energy Consumption
Energy Fuel Type Total Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Percentage of Increase
Countywide
Diesel 123,086.6 0.04
Gasoline 122958.5 0.02
Source: LSA 2025a
As shown in Table 6, the project would consume a total of approximately 123,086.6 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 122,958.5 gallons of gasoline during construction. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 716.3 million gallons of gasoline and 303.0 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2026. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in Riverside County by approximately

0.04 percent for diesel fuel usage and by 0.02 percent for gasoline fuel usage. As such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to Riverside County’s Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

overall use of the State’s available energy resources. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. The project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. Therefore, project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation-related Energy Use
During operation, energy use would be associated with transportation-related fuel use (gasoline, diesel fuel, and electric vehicles) and building-related energy use (electricity).

Energy consumption was estimated for the proposed project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod. The operation-related equipment would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during operation of the proposed project.

The proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle and truck trips. Fuel use associated with vehicle and truck trips generated by the proposed project was calculated based on the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2025c), which identifies that the project would generate approximately 3,477 average daily trips. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB’s EMFAC2021 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Riverside County. Electricity and fuel usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 7, Estimated Operational Energy Consumption.

Table 7
Estimated Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption
Electricity (kWh/year) 4,606,147 kWh/year
Gasoline Fuel (gallons/year) 516,890.4 gallons/year
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 81,130.7 gallons/year
Source: LSA 2025a
kWh = kilowatt hours
As shown in Table 7, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 4,606,147 kWh per year. Total electricity consumption in Riverside County in 2022 was 17,780,573,271 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Riverside County by approximately 0.03 percent.

Electrical demand associated with project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be required to adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. In addition, the proposed project would be developed to be all-electric and would include sustainable features including solar, electric vehicle charging spaces, desert/drought tolerant landscaping, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified, and energy star appliances.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

As shown in Table 7, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at 516,890.4 gallons of gasoline and 81,130.7 gallons of diesel fuel per year. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of project operation would be new to Riverside County. Approximately 695.3 million gallons of gasoline and 361.7 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2028. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Riverside County by approximately 0.07 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by 0.02 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Therefore, there are no project features that would support the use of excessive amounts of energy or would create unnecessary energy waste or conflict with any adopted plan for renewable energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A) b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency include the California Green Building Standards Code, the California Energy Code, and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), while the applicable local plan is the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The California Green Building Standards Code and the California Energy Code institute mandatory minimum environmental performance and energy standards for new construction of commercial and low-rise residential buildings, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals. RPS promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. As discussed in Item VI(a), the project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of the current CALGreen and the Energy Code at the time of building construction. Similarly, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code or with Southern California Edison’s implementation of RPS. Additionally, the project would not conflict with implementation of the City’s CAP, as discussed in detail in Item VIII(a).

Consistent with state requirements, construction equipment would meet CARB Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A) VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section is based on the Updated Geotechnical Report (GeoTek, Inc. 2024; Appendix D) prepared for the project to document geologic conditions for the project site and develop design specifications for hazards such as seismic shaking and related effects. Additionally, a Paleontological Assessment was prepared for the project (BFSA 2025b; Appendix E) to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources and included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records in the area, a review of the underlying geology, and recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, a seismically active region where several known earthquake faults occur. The geologic structure of the entire region is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system, including the San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, and Whittier-Elsinore Fault. However, the project site is not located within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. No on-site faults were observed during the geotechnical field investigation and no active faults are known to traverse the project site (GeoTek 2024). The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore fault located about 14 miles to the southwest.

While the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of a nearby seismic event is possible. Design and construction of future development within the project site would be required to comply with seismic-safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (CBC). Conformance with applicable seismic-safety development requirements would minimize seismic fault rupture effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that the potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Source: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) As noted in Section VII(a)(i) although no faults are located within the project site, the Elsinore fault is located approximately 14 miles to the southwest. A seismic event could cause significant ground shaking on the project site. The proposed project would be required to conform to applicable seismic-safety development requirements to minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake.

Mandatory compliance with the Title 24 standards of the current UBC and CBC during the design and construction of the project would minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Source: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. According to the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, the site is not within an area mapped by the State of California for liquefaction potential, but Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

the County of Riverside has designated the site as having a “very high” potential for liquefaction. A liquefaction analysis was conducted using LyquefyPro, which indicated that on-site soils are not susceptible to significant soil liquefaction during the design-level earthquake (7.3 magnitude). Moreover, the project would comply with applicable building and seismic design standards. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Source: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
iv) Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, the project site is generally flat and the potential for landslides or lateral spreading is considered very low. Development of the project site would require conformance with applicable regulations and standards for construction safety and landslide stability.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Source: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project has the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction. However, potential short-term erosion impacts from construction activities would be addressed through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff. Additionally, potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be minimized or avoided with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Post construction, the project site would mostly be covered with impervious surfaces.

Pervious areas, including the detention basins and landscaped areas, would be designed to minimize areas of exposed soils and treated with groundcover/vegetation such that soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur over the long term. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in VII(a)(iii) and VII(a)(iv), the project would not be subject to landslide-related risks and liquefaction-related risks are considered low according to the liquefaction analysis in the Geotechnical Analysis. However, the project would comply with the CBC to accommodate potential geologic hazards.

Based on the incorporation of applicable design guidelines, potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

(Source: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (No Impact) Expansive soils are attributable to the water holding capacity of clay materials. Such behavior can adversely affect structural integrity (including underground facilities) through shifting of support materials during the shrink-swell process. The Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the project site concluded the on-site soils have a very low potential for expansion (GeoTek 2022). Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: California Geological Survey; Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation [GeoTek 2022]; Updated Geotechnical Report [GeoTek 2024], Appendix D)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. The project would use the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is vacant and does not include known unique geologic features. According to Figure 3.2-3 of the General Plan EIR, the eastern portion of the project site is in an area of High A paleontological sensitivity, while the portions of the site have a Low sensitivity. A High A sensitivity designation is based on geologic formations or mappable rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources. According to the Paleontological Assessment (BSFA 2025b), literature reviews did not identify any previously recorded fossil localities within the project site or vicinity. The closest known fossil locality to the project site is approximately two miles to the southeast in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River outlet, which consists of the remains of a Pleistocene camel in ancient lacustrine deposits. Additionally, no paleontological resources, or evidence indicating the presence of paleontological resources, were identified during the paleontological field survey.

Underlying geologic formations on the project site include Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits and Mesozoic-aged metamorphic rocks. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan assigns levels of paleontological sensitivity to geologic formations mapped within the City limits. Formations mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged alluvium are indicated as having a low sensitivity and metamorphic rocks are assigned no potential. However, older deposits of Pleistocene-aged sediments underlie the Holocene surficial deposits at an unknown depth. These older Pleistocene sediments have a potential to yield significant paleontological resources. The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments across western Riverside County is well documented. Thus, grounddisturbing activities associated with project construction have the potential to uncover paleontological resources. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction, such resources could potentially be damaged or destroyed. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project could Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce this impact to below a level of significance.

Mitigation Measures:

MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Impact Program. Prior to grading, the project applicant or construction contractor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Program (PRIMP) for approval by the Community Development Director. Following Community Development Director approval of the PRIMP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRIMP. The PRIMP shall include the following measures:

1. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at a depth of five feet, monitoring shall be conducted part-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed alluvial sediments. The exact timing of monitoring shall be outlined in the PRIMP. Monitoring of metamorphic rocks mapped at the project is not recommended. The project paleontologist shall have the discretion of increasing or decreasing the timing of monitoring based on the geologic conditions observed during grading activities.

2. Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.

Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.

3. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils shall be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes shall be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are moved to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils shall be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site is determined with the use of handheld global positioning system (GPS) units. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.

4. Isolated fossils shall be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes shall be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are moved to a safe place.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

5. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material. For vertebrate fossils, the test is used to observe the presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, multiple five-gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment.

6. Bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) shall be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth.

7. In the laboratory, individual fossils shall be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, shall be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

8. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

9. Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the WSC). The paleontological program shall include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (e.g., the City of Lake Elsinore) shall be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

10. A final report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the appropriate lead agency, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place. (Sources: General Plan EIR; Paleontological Assessment [BFSA 2025b], Appendix E) VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report prepared for the project (LSA 2025a; Appendix A).
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

primarily associated with burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport; electricity generation; natural gas consumption; industrial activity; manufacturing; and other activities such as deforestation, agricultural activity, and solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California’s AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that “the determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) calls for careful judgment by the lead agency, consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4(b) further states that a lead agency should consider the following nonexclusive factors when assessing the significance of GHG emissions:

1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency applies to the project; and

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets the standards, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts. The City has prepared and adopted a CAP (City 2011d) in December 2011. The consistency of the project with the goals of this CAP fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local-agency decision-makers of the environmental impact of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that GHG emissions are addressed. However, the CAP only analyzes emissions through the 2020 horizon year and does not include an assessment of emissions inventory and reductions necessary to meet the State’s long-term GHG emissions goals, including the 2045 carbon neutrality goal established in AB 127. The following analysis evaluates GHG emissions based on the project’s consistency with applicable State GHG reduction goals.

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions would be released by equipment used for the project’s various construction activities. GHG emissions also would result from worker and vendor trips to and from the project site. Smaller amounts of GHGs would also be emitted through the energy use embodied in water use for fugitive dust control.

Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. GHG emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the proposed project are shown in Table 8, Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (residential—30 years) and added to the operational emissions.

Table 8
Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Phase Total Emissions
(MT CO2e)
1 806.6
2 791.7
TOTAL 1,598.3
Amortized Emissions1 53.3
Source: LSA 2025a 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Operational Emissions
Long-term operational GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle and truck trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile-source GHG emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips to and from the project. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers because of increased electricity demand generated by the project.

Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project-generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

GHG emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod. The total operational and amortized construction emissions for the proposed project are identified in Table 9, Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The complete CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix A to this IS/MND.

Table 9
Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source Project GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Single-Family Residential Development
Mobile 2,964.0
Energy 792.2
Area 3.8
Water 28.3
Waste 58.6
Subtotal (Single-Family Residential) 3,783.9
Multi-Family Residential Development
Mobile 2,372.0
Energy 386.5
Area 5.9
Water 28.9
Waste 53.1
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Source Project GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Subtotal (Multi-Family Residential) 2,846.4
Total Operational Emissions 6,683.6
Construction (Amortized over 30 Years) 53.3
TOTAL Annual Emissions 6,683.6
Source: LSA 2025a
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; MT = metric tons
As shown in Table 9, the proposed project would result in a total of approximately 6,683.6 MT CO2e per year. These estimated emissions are provided for informational purposes, and the significance of the proposed project is further analyzed below.
2022 Scoping Plan Consistency
As previously mentioned, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan. The City’s CAP fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local-agency decision-makers of the environmental impact of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that GHG emissions are addressed. However, the CAP only analyzes emissions through the 2020 horizon year and does not include an assessment of emissions inventory and reductions necessary to meet the State’s long-term GHG emissions goals, including the 2045 carbon neutrality goal established in AB 1279. Therefore, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the State’s CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan; CARB 2022).

The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG. Absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan such as a CEQA-qualified CAP, the first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions. The project’s consistency with key project attributes from the 2022 Scoping Plan that would be applicable to residential development is presented in Table 10, Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Table 10
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure
that, at minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards
Code at the time of project approval.

Consistent. CALGreen Code requires provision of
infrastructure to accommodate EV chargers. The
proposed project would provide EV charging to
comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires 10
percent of the total parking spaces to be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers and that at least half of the
required EV chargers be equipped with J17772
connectors.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses and
reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land that
is presently served by existing utilities
and essential public services (e.g.,
transit, streets, water, sewer).

Consistent. The project site is located in an area with other residential and commercial uses that are
presently served by existing utilities and essential
public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).

Does not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and working
lands.

Consistent. The project site is not zoned for
agricultural land use. In addition, the project site is not located on land that is designated as Prime Farmland
or Farmland of State Importance.

Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling
units per acre) or is in proximity to
existing transit stops (within a half
mile) or satisfies more detailed and
stringent criteria specified in the
region’s SCS.

Consistent. The proposed project would include the
construction of 451 single and multi-family units on a

23.05-acre project site. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in 19 dwelling units per acre,
which is less than 20 residential dwelling units per
acre. However, the project site is located within 0.5
mile of a transit stop. The proposed project would also provide pedestrian infrastructure connecting to
neighboring uses. As such, the project would promote
initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would
increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

Reduces parking requirements by
eliminating parking requirements or
including maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces
to residential units or square feet); or
providing residential parking supply at
a ratio of less than one parking space
per dwelling unit; or for multifamily
residential development, requiring
parking costs to be unbundled from
costs to rent or own a residential unit.

Consistent. The proposed project would consist of
451 single and multi-family units and would be
consistent with the City’s parking requirements for
multifamily and single-family homes. In addition, the
project site is located within 0.5 mile of a transit stop.

The proposed project would also provide pedestrian
infrastructure connecting to neighboring uses. As
such, the project would promote initiatives to reduce
vehicle trips and VMT and would increase the use of
alternate means of transportation.

At least 20 percent of units included
are affordable to lower-income
residents.

Consistent. The proposed project would include 22
affordable residential units which would be below 20
percent. However, the proposed project would include
residential units that would be in close proximity to
other residential and commercial uses and would
allow residents to live within walking distance to
other neighborhoods. Although the proposed project
would not include affordable housing, the proposed
project would provide needed single and multi-family
housing.

Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.

Consistent. The proposed project would not result in
the removal of any existing residential units.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without
any natural gas connections and does
not use propane or other fossil fuels for
space heating, water heating, or indoor
cooking
Consistent. The proposed project would not include
natural gas All appliances would be electric.

Source: LSA 2025a
As shown in Table 10, the project would be consistent with applicable key residential project attributes that are meant to reduce GHGs. Residential projects that have the key project attributes as outlined in Table 10 would be considered to accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals as outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with key project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG emission thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A; CAP [City 2011d]; 2022 Scoping Plan [CARB 2022])
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant Impact) Applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the City’s CAP, the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and related state regulations, and the SCAG’s 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). An evaluation of the project’s consistency with these plans are discussed below.

City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan
The consistency of the project with the goals of this CAP fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing localagency decision-makers of the environmental impact of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that GHG emissions are addressed. Although the CAP does not include a target for 2030, the measures in the plan will continue to provide reductions after the milestone year and help demonstrate continued progress toward achieving the SB 32 2030 target. Table 11, Project Consistency with the City’s CAP, lists the aspects of the project that show compliance with the individual CAP measures applicable to the proposed project.

Table 11
Project Consistency with the City’s CAP
Goals, Targets, Policies Project Consistency
Measure T-1.2: Pedestrian Infrastructure. Through the
development review process, require the installation of sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets. Also
require new subdivisions and large developments to
provide sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses where applicable and provide connections to neighborhood
activity centers, major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the project site; implement through
conditions of approval.

Consistent. The project would include sidewalks
along the street fronting the project site.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Goals, Targets, Policies Project Consistency
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle Infrastructure. Through the
development review process, require new development, as applicable, to implement and connect to the network of
Class I, II and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified in the General Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan,
Trails Master Plan and Western Riverside County NonMotorized Transportation plan; implement through conditions of approval. The City will also continue to
pursue and utilize funding when needed to implement
portions of these plans.

Consistent. The project would include bicycle access
to nearby bikeways, as feasible. The closest bikeways
are located along Collier Avenue south of State Route
(SR) 74 (Central Avenue).

Measure T-2.1: Designated Parking for Fuel-Efficient
Vehicles. Amend the Municipal Code to require that new
non-residential development designate 10% of total
parking spaces for any combination of low-emitting, fuelefficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles (consistent with CALGreen Tier 1, Sections A5.106.5.1 and A5.106.5.3)
and implement through conditions of approval. Parking
stalls shall be marked “Clean Air Vehicle.”
Consistent. The proposed project will include EV
charging parking stations, consistent with CALGreen
Code Tier 2 standards.

Measure E-1.1: Tree Planting Requirements. Through
the development review process, require new development to plant at minimum one 15-gallon non-deciduous,
umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length near buildings, per the Municipal Code. Trees shall be
planted in strategic locations around buildings or shade pavement in parking lots and streets.

Consistent: The proposed project landscape plan
includes trees sited in compliance with the siting and
size recommendations, as well as efficient irrigation
systems, and drought tolerant landscaping.

Source: LSA 2025a
The project would also be consistent with the CAP goal of increasing water and energy efficiency in new buildings by complying with the latest California Building Code (Title 24), including the latest CALGreen Code standards. Construction of the project would include a diversion of construction waste from landfills to recycling consistent with current local and State standards and CAP goals to increase diversion and reduction of waste. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable CAP measures. 2022 Scoping Plan and Related State Regulations
Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016. AB 1279 establishes State policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and for Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to be reduced to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The elimination of natural gas in new development would help projects implement their “fair share” of achieving long-term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent with State goals. As such, if a project does not utilize natural gas, a lead agency can conclude that it would be consistent with achieving the 2045 neutrality goal and will not have a cumulative considerable impact on climate change. The proposed project would not include the use of natural gas; therefore, the proposed project would be implementing its “fair share” of achieving long-term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent with State goals. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the California Energy Commission, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the project would comply with the CALGreen Code, which includes a variety of different measures, including the reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In addition, the proposed project would include efficient irrigation systems and drought-tolerant landscape. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. As identified in the project Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2025c), both baseline (2018) and cumulative (2045) scenarios were analyzed to estimate project generated VMT. The baseline project generated VMT per service population is 22.8 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold. Furthermore, the cumulative project generated VMT per service population is 31.2 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed project is located near commercial and residential areas that are presently served by existing public services (e.g., transit). The proposed project would also provide pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks and private roadways, which will increase connectivity to the surrounding land uses and promote alternative forms of transportation such as walking and cycling, consistent with measures T-1.2 and T-1.4 from the CAP.

Furthermore, the proposed project would include EV spaces and infrastructure that would encourage the use of electric vehicles on the project site, consistent with measure T-2.1 from the CAP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2024 RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The core vision in the 2024 RTP/SCS is to better manage the existing transportation system through design management strategies, integrated land use decisions, technological advancements, complete streets that are safe to all roadway users, preservation of the existing transportation system, and expanded transit and development in transitoriented communities. The 2024 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecast development that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. The forecasted development pattern, when integrated with the financially constrained transportation investments identified in the 2024 RTP/SCS, would reach the regional target of reducing GHG emissions from autos and light-duty trucks by 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). The 2024 RTP/SCS does not require that local General Plans, Specific Plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2024 RTP/SCS but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.

Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets. The proposed project would construct 451 single and multi-family residential units and associated site improvements. The proposed project does not meet the criteria identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15205.b.2 (Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance) for projects of State-wide, regional, or area-wide significance. In addition, the proposed project would not require a change to the General Plan land use designation or the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and, as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets because those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the identified measures and goals from the City’s CAP, 2022 Scoping Plan, and the 2024 RTP/SCS. As such, the proposed project would comply with existing state regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals and would be consistent with the applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report [LSA 2025a], Appendix A, CAP [City 2011d]; 2022 Scoping Plan [CARB 2022])
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project (Environmental Audit, Inc. 2021; Appendix F) to identify and evaluate actual and potential environmental conditions within the project site and vicinity. The assessment included site reconnaissance, review of geologic and hydrogeologic settings, an environmental database search to identify documented “hazardous Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

waste” facilities within 0.5 to 1 mile of the project site, and a review of historical records to assess historical land use and indications of potential contamination or sources of contamination within the project site. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact) Materials and waste are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity); can be ignited by open flame (ignitability); corrode other materials (corrosivity); or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25501[o]) as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. Hazardous waste is defined as any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25125). The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential releases of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through many state and federal laws.

The proposed project entails both single-family and multi-family residential development. During construction, the proposed project would involve the use and/or generation of materials including fuels (gasoline and diesel), equipment fluids (oils and antifreeze), concrete, cleaning solutions, paints, solvents, and adhesives. In addition, future residents and workers would commute to and from the project site via private vehicles. Project landscaping could also potentially involve the use of chemical pesticides in certain instances. However, these operations would comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Applicable regulatory requirements associated with hazardous materials during construction-related activities would be met through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and related BMPs. As a result, hazardous material impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant. Typically, dayto-day activities within the project site would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potentially, regular maintenance could use solvents or other agents. No special permits would be required for such limited transport, use and/or disposal of these common products. With the required compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Potential release of hazardous materials and/or wastes during project construction is discussed above in Item IX(a). As noted therein, potential impacts associated with construction-related hazardous materials would be less than significant based on compliance with regulatory requirements and standard construction measures. Post-construction, the project does not include land uses or improvements that would involve transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would they emit hazardous emissions, other than common materials, chemicals, and products used for routine landscaping and maintenance. While the site was used for small-scale agriculture from roughly 1978 to 1990, the scope of agricultural use on the project site was very small and limited to the southern portion of the site, and enough time has passed to ensure the degradation of any agricultural chemicals to level of insignificance, as discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

(Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [Environmental Audit, Inc. 2021], Appendix F) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile of the project site. In addition, as previously discussed, future development within the project site would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous wastes during construction and operations. As a result, no impact related to handling or emissions of hazardous materials near a school would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact)
Government Code 65962.5 stipulates that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Department of Health Services (DHS), the SWRCB, and any local enforcement agency, as designated by Section 18051, Title 14 of the CCR, identify and update annually a list of sites that have been reported to have certain types of contamination. To determine if the project site is listed on any such site, an environmental information database search was performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).

The EDR review did not identify the project site on an environmental database maintained in accordance with Government Code 65962.5. Seven listed sites near the project site (ranging from approximately 1,100 feet to 5,000 feet away) have been known or suspected to be contaminated, generate hazardous waste, or are suspected to have historically contained an underground storage tank (UST). However, these seven listed sites have been issued no further action letters and have a case closed status and thus, do not pose risks to nearby properties including the project site.

No listed sites that would result in significant hazard to the public or the environment are located on the project site or immediate vicinity. No evidence was observed that the project site has been adversely impacted by contamination and no evidence of recognized environmental conditions exist on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [Environmental Audit, Inc. 2021], Appendix F) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport.

The nearest public airports are Perris Valley Airport located approximately 8 miles to the northeast, HemetRyan Airport located approximately 17 miles to the east, and French Valley Airport located approximately 14 miles to the southeast. No impacts related to airport safety hazards would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) Emergency management services are overseen by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Construction activities that would be reasonably foreseeable with implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to temporarily restrict access for emergency vehicles; however, it is anticipated that construction would not result in the full closure of roadways or other means of emergency access. Compliance with the County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan would be required during construction to ensure adequate emergency access.

Operations associated with the project would not impair or interfere with implementation of adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan [County of Riverside 2024]) g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) Pursuant to Figure 3.10-2 of the General Plan EIR (City of Lake Elsinore 2011c), the project site is within a Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to CAL FIRE’s fire hazard severity zone mapping (CAL FIRE 2025). Portions of the site and surrounding areas support vegetation that serves as a prime fuel source for wildfire, and the wildfire susceptibility in this area is defined as very high. The proposed project would be required to comply with CBC requirements for fire protection in areas prone to wildfires, in particular Section 701A that requires construction with fire resistant materials and methods to minimize property damage. In addition, the project would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Compliance with existing building code requirements and provision of adequate fire protection services would ensure that impacts related to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, CAL FIRE 2025)
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section is based on a Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP; Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a; Appendix G) and a Preliminary Drainage Report (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025b; Appendix H).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Middle Santa Anna Sub-watershed of the Santa Ana Watershed region of Riverside County. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives).

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Construction of the proposed project would include grading, excavation, installation of subsurface infrastructure, and other earthmoving activities that have the potential to cause erosion that could degrade surface or ground water quality and/or violate water quality standards. The use of heavy construction equipment could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, fuels, and other water quality pollutants) that also could potentially affect surface and/or ground water quality. As required by the Clean Water Act, the project would comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) NPDES Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by Riverside County and is issued by the SARWQCB, regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from developments to natural and constructed storm drain systems in the City. Since the proposed project would disturb one or more acres of soil, construction activities would be subject to the Construction General Permit (NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, adopted September 2, 2009 and effective as of July 2, 2010) issued by the SWRCB. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP for site clearing, grading, and disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and postconstruction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways.

Development of the currently vacant project site would result in an increase in impervious surfaces associated with roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and other hardscape features. This increase in on-site impervious surfaces would allow less water to percolate into the ground and would therefore generate more surface water during rainfall events. Impervious surfaces would collect sediments, oil and grease, trash and debris, and other impurities that would then be assimilated into surface runoff. A WQMP (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a) has been prepared for the project to address the increase in polluted runoff that would occur from the proposed project. The project would include three detention basins: a detention basin in the southwest corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Third Street intersection), a detention basin in the south central portion of the site, and a detention basin in the southeast corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Second Street intersection). The project would also construct an inlet in the north central portion of the site that would capture off-flows from the north, as well as incorporate numerous bioretention planters and modular wetlands throughout the site. The bioretention planters and modular wetlands would be shallow, vegetated basins underlain by an engineered soil media that would be incorporated into the site landscaping in parking islands, medians, and site entrances. These facilities would collect runoff where it would be temporarily retained in the soil media. The plants and biological activity in the root zone would then function to take up pollutants and runoff, thus filtering the water before it is released into the storm drain system that eventually leads to Lake Elsinore. The project would also construct a 78-inch storm drain pipe in Dexter Avenue that would connect to an existing 96- inch storm drain in Dexter near its intersection with Third Street. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Drainage Report [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025b], Appendix H; WQMP [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a] Appendix G) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is located within the Warm Springs Valley Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. The increase in impervious surfaces that would occur for the project, as discussed above in Item X(a), would result in decreased on-site percolation capabilities; however, the Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

project proposes pervious surfaces, including on-site landscaping, bioretention planters, and modular wetlands that would collect stormwater runoff from the project site. Water collected in the bioretention planters and modular wetlands would be treated and then released into the storm drain system for output into Lake Elsinore, where infiltration and groundwater recharge occur. This would be consistent with the City’s requirement that treated stormwater be directed to Lake Elsinore and not infiltrated on site.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, WQMP [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a], Appendix G) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact) The existing on-site drainage pattern is generally overland from north to south toward Dexter Avenue. No existing drainage structures occur within the project site. While the project would maintain this same general drainage pattern, impervious surfaces would be constructed on currently vacant land, which would increase the amount and change the drainage flow of on-site runoff. A proposed inlet along the north edge of the site would collect and convey off-site sheet flow from the north to prevent inundation of the project site and surrounding areas. The other detention basins would be located at different main drainage areas throughout the site to capture and treat their corresponding volume of runoff. The project would incorporate on-site gutters that would collect on-site runoff and convey it to proposed bioretention planters and modular wetlands located throughout the site that would treat runoff before it is released to the storm drain system.

With these features, storm water runoff generated during project operation would be adequately captured on site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. There is a potential for erosion and siltation to occur during project construction, specifically during site clearing, grading, and other earthmoving activities. Grading activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance Nos. 636, 801, and 882, and the standards outlined in the City’s Plan Preparation and Design Manual (City 2024). Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements and an erosion control plan would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts to receiving water bodies and adjacent property. Therefore, potential impacts associated with erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Drainage Report [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025b], Appendix H]; WQMP [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a], Appendix G) ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff.

However, the proposed detention basins and the on-site bioretention planters and modular wetlands would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff and prevent flooding on- and off-site. Therefore, the project would not result in on- or off-site flooding and impacts would be less than significant.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Drainage Report [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025b], Appendix H; WQMP [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a], Appendix G) iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or; (Less Than Significant Impact)
As discussed above in Item X(c)(i), implementation of the project would alter the drainage pattern of the site through an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result in an increase in surface runoff; however, proposed drainage infrastructure and the on-site detention basins, bioretention planters and modular wetlands would be designed to adequately accommodate runoff and result in the slow release of stormwater to the storm drain system. In addition, the project would be conditioned to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction-related activities within the right-of-way of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s 78-inch RCP Dexter Avenue Lateral to Third Street Channel Stage 2 along Dexter Avenue. If, during the encroachment permit process, it is determined that any proposed storm drain connections would exceed the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facility, flow reduction measures would be required. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Preliminary Drainage Report [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025b], Appendix H; WQMP [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025a], Appendix G) iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood “Zone X” defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile (FEMA 2025). No portion of the site is mapped within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. As such, the risk of flooding at the site is low and the project is not anticipated to substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center [FEMA 2025])
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (No Impact)
As discussed above in Item X(c)(iv), the project site is not within a special flood hazard area and risk of flood at the project site is considered low (FEMA 2025). A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partly enclosed body of water. Seiches are normally caused by earthquake activity, and can affect harbors, bays, lakes, rivers, and canals. The nearest enclosed body of water is Lake Elsinore, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project site, which is too far to result in inundation at the project site during a seiche event. Additionally, because the project site is located more than twenty miles inland, the project site would not be inundated by a tsunami. As such, no impacts would occur.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: FEMA Flood Map Service Center [FEMA 2025])
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, which is regulated by the SARWQCB.

The SARWQCB has developed a “Water Quality Control Plan” for the Santa Ana River Basin (herein, “Basin Plan”) (SARWQCB 2019). The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the SARWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The SARWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The SARWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In conformance with these requirements, the proposed project would prepare a WQMP to meet applicable requirements of the Basin Plan, including requirements and conditions of approval associated with NPDES permits, issuance of WDRs, and Water Quality Certifications. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant.

As discussed above in Item X(b), the project site is located within the Warm Springs Valley GMZ. Since the City has a large amount of vacant land, substantial changes to recharge systems could occur from development of the vacant parcels. In order to reduce pollutants, the City has implemented policies to minimize pollutants in the local and regional waterways, which includes water that percolates into the groundwater through Water Resources Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 require development projects to acquire a NPDES permit and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Policy 4.3 requires the City to review future development project’s beneficial uses during the environmental review stage. Therefore, the project would not conflict with sustainable groundwater management plans, and potential impacts associated with implementation of a groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Basin Plan [SARWQCB 2019]; General Plan EIR)
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or the removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way so as to create a physical barrier within an established community. The proposed project is surrounded by vacant land to the southwest and northeast, rural residences to the north, an RV park to the southeast, and commercial development to the south. The project site is not currently used for access between existing uses and implementation of the project would not create a physical barrier that would divide an established community. Moreover, project implementation would not provide for infrastructure systems such as new Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

roadways that would divide or disrupt neighborhoods or other established community elements in a previously developed and urbanized area. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project site is zoned and has a General Plan Land Use designation of CMU. The project includes singlefamily and multi-family residences, which are allowable within the CMU designation with a CUP, pursuant to LEMC Section 17.134.020. As such, a CUP (CUP-2024-08) is proposed as part of the project. The proposed project has been designed to meet the development standards as identified in the LEMC Section

17.134, and to be consistent with the applicable land use policies and regulations of the General Plan.

Review of the project by the Planning Commission and/or City Council with applicable zoning regulations as part of the approval process would ensure that the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, polices, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

As discussed in Item IV(f), with implementation of MM BIO-1, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Thus, with the implementation of BIO-1, land-use related impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Item VIII(a), the project would not conflict with the City’s CAP.

General Plan Land Use – Noise Compatibility
Exterior Noise
Per the City General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element, multi-family residential uses are “clearly compatible” with noise levels up to 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), “normally compatible” with noise levels from 60 to 70 CNEL, “normally incompatible” with noise levels from 70 to 75 CNEL, and “clearly incompatible” with noise levels above 75 CNEL. The interior noise level standard for residential uses is 45 CNEL. This exterior noise standard applies to common outdoor use areas and private patios and balconies.

Project exterior noise levels were calculated at nine modeled receptor locations representing the backyard of single-family residences and private balconies of multi-family residences (apartments and townhomes) on the project site closest to I-15 and Dexter Avenue. Exterior noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108), General Plan with project average daily traffic (ADT) volumes derived from the Dexter Village Project Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2025c; Appendix J), and project plans. The specific assumptions used in developing the exterior noise levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix B of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, while detailed noise calculations are shown in Appendix E. Table 12, Exterior Noise Levels at Modeled Receptors, shows the estimated noise levels at the modeled receivers without and with noise barriers.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Table 12
Exterior Noise Levels at Modeled Receptors
Receptor Number Noise Level (dBA Ldn)
No Barrier 6-Foot Barrier 7-Foot Barrier
R-1 70.7 60.7 59.3
R-2 70.1 59.9 58.6
R-3 70.1 59.8 58.5
R-4 69.7 59.5 58.2
R-5 67.5 58.4 57.2
R-6 69.5 59.2 57.8
R-7 69.3 58.9 57.6
R-8 67.6 57.8 56.6
R-9 58.1 -- --
Source: LSA 2025b
dBA= A-weighted decibels; Ldn=Day/night noise; ft-=foot As shown in Table 12, exterior noise levels at eight of the nine receptors (Receptors R-1 through R-8) would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 60 dBA Ldn for residential uses. A minimum sevenfoot-high balcony barrier would be required for residential dwelling units representing Receptor R-1 (apartments in the northern half of Apartment Building 8 with balconies facing Dexter Avenue), and a minimum six-foot-high balcony barrier would be required for residential dwelling units representing Receptors R-2 through R-8 (apartments in the southern half of Apartment Building 8 facing Dexter Avenue and townhomes with balconies facing Dexter Avenue) to reduce exterior noise levels below 60 dBA Ldn.

Therefore, MM LU-1, which requires noise attenuation barriers at balconies and patios, would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. With incorporation of the appropriate balcony barriers prescribed in MM LU-1, noise levels would be reduced at each affected balcony to a level considered “clearly compatible” or “normally compatible” by the City’s exterior noise standard.

Interior Noise
Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (1978), with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) residential buildings would provide more than 24 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows and doors closed and 12 dBA or more with windows and door open (the national average is 25 dBA with windows and doors closed and 15 dBA with windows and doors open).

Table 13, Interior Noise Levels at Modeled Receptors, shows the calculated interior noise levels with windows open for the residential dwelling units represented by Receptors R-1 through R-9 based on the exterior noise level and an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 12 dBA for standard construction in Southern California (warm climate).

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Table 13
Interior Noise Levels at Modeled Receptors
Noise Level (dBA Ldn)
Receptor Number Exterior Interior
With Windows Open With Windows Closed
R-1 70.7 58.7 46.7
R-2 70.1 58.1 46.1
R-3 70.1 58.1 46.1
R-4 69.7 57.7 45.7
R-5 67.5 55.5 43.5
R-6 69.5 57.5 45.5
R-7 69.3 57.3 45.3
R-8 67.6 55.6 43.6
R-9 58.1 46.1 34.1
Source: LSA 2025b
dBA= A-weighted decibels; Ldn=Day/night noise
Per the City General Plan Public Safety and Welfare Element and the California Building Code, interior noise levels should not exceed 45 CNEL in habitable residential space. As Table 13 shows, Receptors R-1 through R-9 would have interior noise levels with windows open that range from 46.1 to 58.7 dBA Ldn, which would exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Therefore, mechanical ventilation systems such as air conditioning would be required for all residential dwelling units on the project site so that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. In addition, Receptors R-1 through R-7 would have interior noise levels with windows closed that range from 45.3 to 46.7 dBA Ldn. Residential units represented by Receptors R-1 through R-7 would have interior noise levels that exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. As such, MM LU-2 would be required to ensure impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

MM LU-1: Balcony Noise Barriers. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a minimum sevenfoot-high balcony barrier shall be constructed at balconies of apartment units in the northern half of Apartment Building 8 that face Dexter Avenue, and a minimum six-foothigh balcony barrier shall be constructed at balconies of townhome units facing Dexter Avenue. The barriers shall be continuous with no gaps or holes and may be any material that has a minimum transmission loss of 10 dBA at all 1/3 octave band frequencies. A 0.5- inch-thick plexiglass is an example material that would provide the minimum transmission loss.

MM LU-2: Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis. For residential units along Dexter Avenue, the project applicant shall coordinate with the project architects and contractors to ensure interior noise level compliance with the 45-CNEL standard. This shall be achieved through an exteriorto-interior noise analysis once specific building plans are available. The information in the analysis shall include wall heights and lengths, room volumes, window and door tables typical for a building plan, as well as information on other openings in the building shell.

With this specific building plan information, the analysis shall determine the predicted interior noise levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted noise levels are found to be in excess of 45 CNEL, the report shall identify architectural materials or techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels to the 45-CNEL limit.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

(Sources: Zoning Map; General Plan; MSHCP; Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis [LSA, 2025b], Appendix I)
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)
Substantial mineral resources have been identified within the City and are noted within the City’s General Plan, in particular aggregate type mineral resources. These resource areas are primarily designated within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram based on available geological information. The designation of MRZ 2 indicates the area is underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data shows that significant measured or indicated resources are present. According to Figure 3.12-1 of the General Plan EIR (City 2011c), the project site is located within MRZ 3, or areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The project site is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area by the State Board of Mining and Geology, nor has mineral extraction been documented to occur on site. Further, the project site has a land use and zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use and is not planned for mineral extraction use.

Implementation of the proposed project therefore would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) As discussed in Item XII(a), the General Plan does not identify the project site to be a significant mineral resource area as it is not located within one of the designated locally important mineral resource areas within the City. Additionally, the project site is not used for mineral extraction and is not delineated on any plan for mineral resource recovery uses. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
XIII. NOISE
This section is based on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the project (LSA, 2025b; Appendix I).
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Noise-sensitive land uses are associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or substantial interference from noise, and often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, libraries, parks, and nature/wildlife preserves.

Existing land uses within the project area include single-family residences, vacant land, commercial, and Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

industrial uses. Single-family residences are to the north and a recreational vehicle park is to the southeast.

Commercial uses are to the north and west. Industrial uses are located to the south. Vacant land is located to the north, northeast, and southwest. An evaluation of potential construction and operational noise impacts is provided below.

Construction Noise
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction on the project site. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. The pieces of heavy equipment for construction activities will be moved on site, will remain for the duration of each construction phase, and will not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 feet would generate up to a maximum of 84 dBA), the effect on longer-term (daily) ambient noise levels would be small because the daily construction-related vehicle trips are small compared to the existing daily traffic volume on Dexter Avenue and 3rd Street, which would be used to access the project site. Based on calculated ADT volumes, construction-related traffic would increase noise levels by up to 0.7 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.

Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated from construction activities.

Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. The project anticipates site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. These various sequential phases change the character of the noise generated on a project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses.

Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Section 17.176.080F of the LEMC specifies noise level limits for mobile and stationary construction equipment. The equipment used for project construction would be mobile and stationary. The applicable daytime construction noise limits would be 75 dBA Leq at Type I single-family residential areas for mobile equipment and 60 dBA Leq for stationary equipment, 80 dBA Leq at Type II multi-family residential areas for mobile equipment and 65 dBA Leq for stationary equipment, and 85 dB(A) Leq at Type III semiresidential/commercial areas for mobile equipment and 65 dB(A) Leq for stationary equipment. Business properties have a noise limit of 85 dBA Leq for mobile equipment and 75 dBA Leq for stationary equipment, unchanged based on time of day.

Project construction noise was determined from the maximum noise levels from typical construction equipment included in the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. The anticipated construction equipment for each construction phase was based on the CalEEMod results contained in Attachment A of the Dexter Village Project Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Report (LSA 2025a; Appendix A).

Project construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading, building construction, loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving.

Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the soils from excavation. As shown in Table 14, Construction Noise Levels, the mobile construction noise levels at the closest singlefamily residence, multi-family residence, and business properties would reach up to 66.0, 65.9, and 68.2 dBA Leq, respectively, from the center of the project site because the City’s construction noise standard is an hourly average and construction equipment at the center of the project site represents the average Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

condition. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s mobile construction noise standard of 75, 80, and 85 dBA Leq for single-family residence, multi-family residence, and business properties, respectively.

Similarly, the stationary construction noise levels at the closest single-family residence, multi-family residence, and business properties would reach up to 52.8, 54.3, and 56.6 dBA Leq, respectively, from the center of the project site. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s stationary construction noise standard of 60, 65, and 75 dBA Leq for single-family residence, multi-family residence, and business properties, respectively. Although noise generated by project construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels and may result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise levels, construction noise would stop once project construction is completed. Construction activities would be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays, per the LEMC Section 17.176. No nighttime, weekend, or holiday construction activities are anticipated. Therefore, construction noise levels generated from project construction would comply with the City Noise Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 14
Construction Noise Levels
Phase Land Use Distance
from
Center
of
Project
Site
(feet)
Mobile
Noise
Level
(dBA
Leq)
Stationary
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Mobile
Construction
Noise
Standard
(dBA Leq)
Stationary
Construction
Noise
Standard
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Daytime
Noise
Standard?
Grading Residence 880 64.3 51.1 75 60 No
Residence 725 66.0 52.8 75 60 No
Commercial 925 63.9 50.7 85 75 No
Commercial 1,160 61.9 48.7 85 75 No
RV Park 855 64.5 51.3 80 65 No
Industrial 780 65.3 52.1 85 75 No
Commercial 945 63.7 50.5 85 75 No
Phase 1 Residence 1,100 60.8 49.2 75 60 No
(Single- Residence 1,250 60.6 49.0 75 60 No
Family) Commercial 1,395 58.7 47.1 85 75 No
Paving Commercial 760 64.0 52.4 85 75 No
RV Park 620 65.7 54.1 80 65 No
Industrial 775 63.8 52.2 85 75 No
Commercial 1,205 60.0 48.4 85 75 No
Phase 2a Residence 1,185 60.1 48.5 75 60 No
(Multi Residence 1,245 59.7 48.1 75 60 No
Family) Commercial 1,410 58.6 47.0 85 75 No
Paving Commercial 1,030 61.3 49.7 85 75 No
RV Park 605 65.9 54.3 80 65 No
Industrial 465 68.2 56.6 85 75 No
Commercial 1,130 60.5 48.9 85 75 No
Phase 2b Residence 880 62.7 51.1 75 60 No
(Townhome) Residence 725 64.4 52.8 75 60 No
Paving Commercial 925 62.3 50.7 85 75 No
Commercial 1,160 60.3 48.7 85 75 No
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Phase Land Use Distance
from
Center
of
Project
Site
(feet)
Mobile
Noise
Level
(dBA
Leq)
Stationary
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Mobile
Construction
Noise
Standard
(dBA Leq)
Stationary
Construction
Noise
Standard
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Daytime
Noise
Standard?
RV Park 855 62.9 51.3 80 65 No
Industrial 780 63.7 52.1 85 75 No
Commercial 945 62.1 50.5 85 75 No
Source: LSA 2025b
ft = feet; dBA = A-weighted decibel(s); Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Operational Noise
Noise generated by project operations would include mobile sources (i.e., traffic noise) and on-site noise sources.

Traffic Noise
The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic related noise conditions along roadways in the project vicinity. The Existing (2025) and Opening Year (2028), and General Plan Buildout without and with project ADT volumes were derived from the Dexter Village Project Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2025c; Appendix J). The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways obtained from Appendix I-1 of the Riverside County General Plan (Riverside County 2015) was used for traffic on these roadway segments. The noise levels gathered for the vehicle mix represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix B of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis.

Project-related traffic would increase noise levels by up to 3.0 dBA along 2nd Street between Dexter Avenue and Project Driveway 5 under the Existing with project scenario. Although this noise level increase is barely perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment, the Elsinore Hills Recreational Vehicle Park is approximately 22 feet from the 2nd Street centerline and would be exposed to traffic noise levels of

55.3 dBA CNEL. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL for residential uses. For all other roadways in the project area, the project-related traffic would increase noise by up to 0.8 dBA under the Existing with project scenario, and by up to 1.8 dBA under Opening Year with project and General Plan Buildout with project conditions. These noise level increases would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, traffic noise from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

On-site Sources
The proposed project would include approximately 453 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, which could operate 24 hours per day. The specifications of the HVAC equipment, including the reference noise level, are provided in Appendix C of the Noise and vibration Impact Report. Each HVAC unit would generate a noise level of 44.4 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. A total of 453 HVAC units operating simultaneously would generate a noise level of 70.9 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.

Table 15, Operational Noise Levels, lists the HVAC noise level at the property line of adjacent land uses surrounding the project site along with the reference noise level at 50 feet, distance from the center of the project site to the property line of the adjacent land use, the City daytime and nighttime noise standard, the Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

existing average daytime/nighttime ambient noise level, combined daytime/nighttime noise level with ambient noise level, and noise increase over the existing average daytime/nighttime ambient noise level.

Table 15
Operational Noise Levels
Land Use Distance
(feet)
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Daytime/
nighttime
Noise
Standard
(dBA)
Existing
Average
Daytime/
Nighttime
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA
Leq)
Combined
Daytime/
Nighttime Noise
Level With
Ambient Noise
Level (dBA
Leq)
Noise
Increase
Over
Existing
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA)
Residence 880 46.0 50/40 64.8/58.8 64.9/59.0 0.1/0.2
Residence 725 47.7 50/40 63.4/57.8 63.5/58.2 0.1/0.4
Commercial 925 45.6 60/55 64.8/58.8 64.9/59.0 0.1/0.2
Commercial 1,160 43.6 60/55 64.8/58.8 64.8/58.9 0.0/0.1 RV Park 855 46.2 50/45 63.2/56.9 63.3/57.3 0.1/0.4
Industrial 780 47.0 70/70 70.4/63.8 70.4/63.9 0.0/0.1
Commercial 945 45.4 60/55 70.4/63.8 70.4/63.9 0.0/0.1
Source: LSA 2025b
ft = feet; dBA = A-weighted decibel(s); Leq = equivalent continuous sound level As shown in Table 15, noise generated from the operation of all HVAC units would not exceed the City’s daytime noise standards of 50 dBA and 60 dBA for residences and commercial uses, 70 dBA for industrial uses, and 55 dBA for commercial uses, respectively, based on LEMC Section 17.176.060. Although noise generated from the operation of all HVAC units would exceed the City’s nighttime noise standards of 40 dBA and 45 dBA for single-family residences and RV Park, respectively, the ambient noise level increase would reach up to 0.4 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, noise generated from HVAC equipment would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures required.
(Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis [LSA, 2025b], Appendix I; Traffic Impact Study [LSA 2025c], Appendix J)
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations without vibrating structures.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in, as well as individual sensitivity. For example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying.

Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying. Based on vibration standards included in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, the criteria for annoyance threshold is 0.04 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity-root mean square (PPV-RMS) and 0.30 PPV in/sec for older residential structures or newer (Caltrans 2020).

The Noise and Impact Report Analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS amplitude and assesses the potential for building damage using vibration levels in PPV. Vibration levels calculated in RMS amplitude velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, whereas vibration levels in PPV are best for characterizing damage potential.

The greatest vibration levels are anticipated during the site preparation and grading phases. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts normally occur within the buildings. Site preparation and grading activities for the project are expected to require the use of large bulldozers and loaded trucks, which would generate ground-borne vibration of up to 0.089 in/sec PPV-max (0.062 in/sec PPV-RMS) and 0.076 in/sec PPV-max (0.053 in/sec PPV-RMS), respectively, when measured at 25 feet. Pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and other heavy-tracked construction equipment would not be used during construction of the proposed project.

The closest residential and non-residential building is approximately 860 feet southeast and 810 feet south from the center of the project site and would experience a vibration level of up to 0.002 in/sec PPV-RMS.

This vibration level would not have the potential to result in community annoyance because vibration levels would not exceed the Caltrans annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV-RMS. In addition, the closest building is approximately 35 feet southeast from the project construction boundary and would experience a vibration level of up to 0.061 PPV (in/sec). This vibration level would not result in building damage because the building is conservatively assumed to be an older residential structure or better, and the anticipated project-related vibration levels would not exceed the Caltrans vibration damage threshold of

0.30 PPV (in/sec). Other building structures that surround the project site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away.

Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis [LSA 2025b], Appendix I, Caltrans 2020) c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport. The nearest public airports are Perris Valley Airport located approximately 8 miles to the northeast, Hemet-Ryan Airport located approximately 17 miles to the east, and French Valley Airport located approximately 14 miles to the southeast. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels from such uses. No impact would occur.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. The housing provided by the proposed project would accommodate planned regional growth. The project would introduce 451 residential units that would result in a direct increase in population in the project area. Based on the most recent available U.S. Census data (2023), the City has a rate of 3.5 persons per household (U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census 2024). Accordingly, the project has the potential to introduce 1,579 persons into the project area. This would not represent a substantial unplanned population as the project site is designated and zoned Commercial Mixed Use, which encourages residential land uses. Thus, while the project would directly induce population growth, it would not induce unplanned growth as this growth is envisioned by the General Plan and the designation of this area for residential development. Although the project would result in an increase in temporary construction jobs, these jobs are expected to be filled by members of the existing population of the area. Furthermore, the project would not result in the extension of roads or other infrastructure that would indirectly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census 2024) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project site is currently vacant. No existing housing or businesses would be displaced upon implementation of the project. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City Fire Department is comprised of contracted fire services with RCFD and CAL FIRE. The RCFD operates 101 fire stations in 15 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services throughout Riverside County (RCFD 2025). Equipment used by RCFD has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Specifically, Battalion 2 of RCFD services the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 97, located approximately one mile northeast of the project site.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Development of the project would be subject to the City’s policies and ordinances for hazard mitigation and fire prevention. The project would be required to comply with applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site and as such, will be reviewed by the City Fire Department to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to ensure compliance with these requirements. Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens whereby as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the City, the property owner or land developer is required to pay development impact fees or provide other consideration to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which will benefit such new development. LEMC Section 16.74.049 includes a “fire facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for City fire facilities. Since the proposed project includes new housing, impacts must be offset through the payment of the appropriate development impact fees. As described above in Item XIV(a), the addition of 451 residential units on vacant land would result in an increase in the number of residents in the project vicinity. However, the increase in demand for fire protection services from this increase in population is not anticipated to require the construction of new facilities or infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan, LEMC; Riverside County Fire Stations [RCFD 2025]) b) Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
As a contract service to the City provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the Lake Elsinore Police Department is responsible for police protection within the City, including enforcement of local, state, and federal statutes; public safety; traffic enforcement; and maintaining public order. The California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement to the County with additional support from the local County Sheriff’s Department. The Lake Elsinore Police Department/Sheriff’s Station is located at 333 Limited Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site.

Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. The proposed project would participate in this development impact fee program to mitigate potential impacts to police protection resources. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable law enforcement requirements and standards to ensure adequate law enforcement protection is available to serve the project site. Potential impacts would be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the development impact fee and compliance with regulatory requirements. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to police protection.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with police projection would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan; LEMC)
c) Schools? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) covers a 144-square mile area within the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, City of Wildomar, and a portion of the unincorporated County of Riverside.

LEUSD is composed of 25 schools including 13 elementary schools, 2 K-8 schools, 4 middle schools, Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

3 comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and 2 alternative education centers. The proposed project would generate new housing to accommodate planned population growth. As described above in Item XIV(a), the addition of 451 residential units on vacant land would result in an increase in the number of residents in the project vicinity, some of whom may have school-age children who would attend the local LEUSD schools. To offset potential impacts resulting from the increase in demand on school facilities and services, the project would be subject to payment of school development fees. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
d) Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City has 19 public parks with hundreds of acres of active and passive recreation opportunities. The proposed project includes the development of 451 residential units, which would result in additional usage of existing City parks. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph D of LEMC Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Park Capital Improvement Fund and describes that the City Council has the option to request dedication for park purposes or in lieu thereof, request that the property owner or developer pay a fee for the purpose of purchasing the land and developing and maintaining the City park system. The project would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land within the City. Potential impacts would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical effects related to parks, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
e) Other public services/facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City is part of the Riverside County Library System. The closest library to the project site is the Lake Elsinore Library at 600 W Graham Drive, approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site. Section

16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the LEMC requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner or developer must pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section.

Paragraph B of LEMC Section 16.34.060 describes the City’s Library Mitigation Fee and states that an inlieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City to assure the necessary library facilities are provided to the community. Since the proposed project would include new housing, potential impacts must be offset through the payment of the appropriate library mitigation fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with libraries would be less than significant.

Chapter 16.74 of the LEMC establishes a program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the purpose of defraying the costs of public expenditures for capital improvements (and operational services to the extent allowed by law) which would benefit such new development. LEMC Section 16.74.048 includes an “Animal shelter facilities fee” to mitigate the additional burdens created by new development for animal facilities. In addition, the property owner would be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees, Community Center Fees, and Marina Facilities Fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, potential impacts associated with other public services and facilities would be less than significant.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: LEMC)
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 – 2030 (adopted July 14, 2009) establishes a goal of providing five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would include the development of 451 residential units and although the project includes on-site recreational areas, it would result in increased demand for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Impacts to park facilities from the proposed project would include additional use of existing public park facilities by the new residents. As described in Item XIV(d), the project applicant would be required to pay park fees to the City for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining parkland within the City. Potential projectrelated impacts would be offset through the payment of the appropriate park fees. Therefore, potential impacts associated with parks or recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Parks and Recreation Master Plan [City of Lake Elsinore 2009]; LEMC) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact)
The proposed project would include two on-site recreational facilities exclusively for the project residents serving each of the residential development areas. The first would be located in the center of the singlefamily residential development and include a recreation building and swimming pool/spa area. The second would be located in the center of the multi-family residential area and include a clubhouse building, a swimming pool area, and a playground area. As discussed in Item XVI(a), the project could result in increased demand in use for recreational facilities, but it would not require or result in the need to construct or expand existing public recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION
A Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, 2025c; Appendix J) was prepared for the proposed project to assess the project’s potential to affect the circulation system and to generate VMT. Portions of the following analysis are based on this report.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) Section 2.4 of the Community Form Element of the City’s General Plan addresses circulation in Lake Elsinore. The following policies in Section 2.4.4, Circulation Goal, Policies, and Implementation Program, apply to the proposed project:

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

• Policy 6.1: The interconnection and coordination of traffic signals shall be achieved through two processes, namely the requirements in the conditions of approval on development projects and/or through the implementation of Capital Improvement Program projects. • Policy 6.3: Maximize the use of shared driveways and on-site circulation to minimize conflicts at access points to the roadway network.
• Policy 6.4: Maintain the system of bike lanes and multi-use trails throughout the City.

Encourage the implementation of the network of Class I, II, and III bike lanes on all development projects through construction of the facility as described in the Bike Lane Master Plan and/or the Trails Master Plan.

The project would install a traffic signal at the intersection of Dexter Avenue and Third Street in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2025c). The project would include access driveways along Dexter Avenue, Second Street, and Third Street, and internal drives would extend on site to facilitate adequate circulation throughout the project site.

Connections would be provided from the project site to the adjacent Class II bicycle path and Regional Trail on Second Street and the Class II bicycle path on Cambern Avenue. Restricted left-turn outs will be enforced via striping and signage at the proposed commercial driveway onto Dexter Avenue to minimize conflicts at access points to the roadway network. Accordingly, the proposed project does not conflict with applicable General Plan policies regarding circulation.

In 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments adopted the Connect SoCal Plan to increase mobility options in the region and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2020). A major goal of the Connect SoCal Plan is encouraging development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options. As described above, the proposed project would connect to local Class II bicycle paths and the Regional Trail on Second Street. Additionally, Riverside Transit Agency Routes 8 and 9 are located along Central Avenue approximately ¼ mile northwest of the project site. As such, the project would not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system with implementation of proposed design features, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Source: Traffic Impact Analysis [LSA 2025c], Appendix J) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) sets forth specific criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts as related to VMT. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) and Senate Bill (SB) 743, the City recently updated their Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide to include VMT analysis methodology. Land use projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (compared to the City’s baseline threshold) are evaluated for potential impacts.

Per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (TIA Guidelines), adopted June 23, 2020 and revised November 14, 2022 (City 2022), there are three types of Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) screening criteria. If a project satisfies one or more of the three screening criteria, it can be presumed to not have a significant impact related to VMT and can be effectively screened from having to do additional project-level VMT analysis. The three types include the following:

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: The TIA Guidelines state that projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact and may be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis. The project is not located within a TPA. Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the project.

2. Low VMT Area Screening: The TIA Guidelines identify that residential and office land use projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact and may be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis. Pursuant to the TIA Guidelines, the project site was evaluated using WRCOG’sscreening tool. According to the WRCOG screening tool, the project is not located within a low VMT-generating area. Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the project.

3. Project Type Screening: The TIA Guidelines state that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact and may be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis. Additionally, residential projects with less than 148 singlefamily residential dwelling units or less than 200 multi-family residential dwelling units may be presumed to have a less than significant impact and may be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis. The project does not include local serving retail uses and proposes more than 148 singlefamily units and more than 200 multi-family residential units. Therefore, the proposed project does not meet this screening criterion.

As identified above, the project does not meet applicable screening criteria. As such, pursuant to the TIA Guidelines, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted to assess the project’s VMT impact.

The City’s TIA Guidelines provide criteria regarding VMT analysis based on land use types. Pursuant to the TIA Guidelines, the “project generated VMT” and the “project effect on VMT” were analyzed for the proposed project. As the proposed project is a residential land use project, the baseline and cumulative project-generated VMT per service population was compared to the City’s baseline VMT per service population to determine the project’s VMT impact. A significant project-generated VMT impact would occur if either the baseline or cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the City’s baseline VMT per service population. Furthermore, the baseline and cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population under “plus project” conditions were compared to that of the corresponding “no project” conditions to determine the project’s effect on VMT. The project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if either the baseline or cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population increases under “plus project” conditions compared to that of the corresponding “no project” conditions.

As recommended in the TIA Guidelines, the latest version of RIVCOM (Version 4.01) was used for the project VMT analysis. This version of RIVCOM was used to estimate the project and jurisdictional (City) VMT per service population. Both baseline and cumulative scenarios were analyzed to estimate project generated VMT.

Table 16, Project VMT Per Service Population, summarizes the City’s threshold and project generated VMT per service population. Table 17, Link-Level Boundary VMT Per Service Population, summarizes the comparison between the link-level boundary VMT for “no project” and “plus project” conditions for both baseline and cumulative scenarios.

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

Table 16
Project VMT per Service Population
Scenario Project Threshold Difference Percentage
Difference
Baseline 27.7 35.9 -8.2 -22.8%
Cumulative 24.7 35.9 -11.2 -31.2%
Source: LSA 2025c
Table 17
Link-level boundary VMT per Service Population
Scenario Plus Project No Project Difference
Baseline
Roadway VMT 1,511,635 1,505,141 6,495
Service Population 74,411 72,751 1,660
VMT Per Service Population 20.3 20.7 -0.4
Cumulative
Roadway VMT 2,163,388 2,151,009 12,379
Service Population 138,458 136,798 1,660
VMT Per Service Population 15.6 15.7 -0.1
Source: LSA 2025c
As shown in Table 16, the baseline project-generated VMT per service population is 22.8 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold, and the cumulative project-generated VMT per service population is 31.2 percent lower than the City’s baseline VMT per service population threshold.

As shown in Table 17, the link-level boundary VMT is lower under “plus project” conditions compared to that of the corresponding “no project” conditions in both baseline and cumulative scenarios. Therefore, VMT impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Traffic Impact Analysis [LSA Associates Inc. 2025c], Appendix J]) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) The proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The project does not propose a dangerous design feature, nor would the proposed access driveways connect to existing roadways in such a way that would pose a danger to increased traffic. Sight distance and project access would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that project circulation and access has been designed per City regulations.

Therefore, no impact associated with hazardous geometric design features would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would be constructed on a vacant site along Dexter Avenue. The site would be accessed via driveways along Dexter Avenue, Second Street, and Third Street. Similarly, internal drives Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

would meet applicable design standards to allow adequate circulation for emergency vehicles and evacuation. In conjunction with the review and approval of building permits, the City’s Fire and Police Departments would review plans to ensure compliance with applicable emergency access and safety requirements. With application of project review procedures, impacts involving emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) As previously discussed in Item V(a), no recorded historical or archaeological resources are located within the project site, and no new resources were identified during the field survey conducted at the project site.

To identify potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) at the project site, a Sacred Lands File Search was conducted with the NAHC. The results of Sacred Lands File Search were negative and no resources have been previously identified in the immediate project area.

AB 52, signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:
 Prescribed notification and response timelines;
 Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures; and
 Documentation of consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.

A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c).

Dexter Village Project – IS/MND

In accordance with the requirements of AB 52, the City sent notification to six Tribes on March 5, 2025.

The Pechanga and Soboba Tribes requested consultation. The initial consultation meeting was held with Pechanga on April 22, 2025 and October 14, 2025, and with Soboba on July 2, 2025. Soboba concluded consultation on July 2, 2025. At the June 24, 2025 consultation meeting with Pechanga, an additional mitigation measure, MM CUL-8, was requested to be added for supplemental reburial areas. A follow-up consultation was scheduled with Soboba on October 8, 2025 to ensure that they also agreed to the additional mitigation measure. Soboba agreed and accepted the additional mitigation measure. Pechanga concluded consultation on October 30, 2025.

Based on the absence of recorded resources within or adjacent to the project site, no adverse changes in the significance of TCRs are anticipated; however, it is possible that unknown TCRs may be discovered during grading and other ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8, identified in Item V, Cultural Resources, would be implemented to ensure that potential impacts to TCRs pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-8
(Sources: Cultural Resources Survey Report [BFSA 2025a], Appendix C) XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section is based, in part, on a Water System Analysis (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025c; Appendix K) and a Sewer System Analysis (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025d; Appendix L) prepared for project.
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Proposed utilities would include construction of water, sewer, and storm drain laterals and pipelines, as well as connections to existing electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lines. The project site is within the service boundary for EVMWD. The project would be served by existing water and wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. Water service would be provided by the EVMWD through laterals to an existing 24-inch line in Third Street, a proposed 30-inch water main in Dexter Avenue that would connect to the existing line in Third Street, and a proposed 12-inch line in Second Street that would connect to the proposed water line in Dexter Avenue. An on-site system of 8-inch water lines would be installed along internal access drives. Sewer service would be provided through several on-site 8-inch lines within internal drives and 6-inch lines within internal alleys that would connect to a proposed 8-inch line in Dexter Avenue.

In addition, the project would provide on-site storm water drainage facilities that would connect to the existing municipal storm drain system. Proposed storm drain facilities would include three detention basins: a detention basin in the southwest corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Third Street intersection), a basin in the south central portion of the site , and a detention basin in the southeast corner of the site (near the Dexter Avenue/Second Street intersection). The project would also construct an inlet in the north central portion of the site that would capture off-flows from the north and a 78-inch storm drain pipe in Dexter Avenue that would connect to an existing 96-inch storm drain in Dexter near its intersection with Third Street. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications services would be provided by utility service providers (Southern California Gas Company, SCE, and Frontier) via connections to existing lines Dexter Village Project – IS/MND