in Dexter Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Water System Analysis [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025c], Appendix K; Sewer System Analysis [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025d], Appendix L; SCE Will Serve Letter, Southern California Gas Company Will Serve Letter, Frontier Will Serve Letter) b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of water for dust control during grading activities. The amount of water used during construction would, however, be minimal.
During operation, the anticipated water use for the proposed project would generate increased demand for water supplies. EVMWD, which obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin, would provide water service to the project site. According to EVMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, EVMWD has determined that it has current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient to meet the projected dry-year and multiple dry-year demand.
The project would not cause water storage or pumping capacity deficiencies (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025c). The existing 1601 Rosetta Canyon pressure zone, which would serve the project, currently has a storage surplus of 1.42 million gallons (MG). The project would require 0.25 MG of that surplus, meaning that the 1601 Rosetta Canyon zone would maintain a surplus storage capacity of 1.17 MG after meeting the project’s demand. Similarly, the 1601 Rosetta Canyon pressure zone has a pumping capacity surplus of 2,675 gallons per minute (gpm) and the project would require 24.26 gpm, resulting in a surplus pumping capacity of 2,470.74 gpm. Thus, there are sufficient water supplies as well as water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within the EVMWD service area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Water System Analysis [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025c], Appendix K; EVMWD Urban Water Management Plan)
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? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would generate wastewater, resulting in an increased demand for wastewater treatment. The project is estimated to generate 61,781 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater under average dry weather flow conditions, and 185,343 gpd under peak dry weather flow conditions (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025d). EVMWD would provide wastewater service for the proposed project, and project flows would be conveyed directly to EVMWD’s Regional Reclamation Facility. The project’s proposed wastewater system would meet applicable design criteria for pipeline velocity (minimum of 2 feet per second [fps] and maximum of 10 fps) and flow to depth ratio (maximum of 0.50) considering the projected wastewater flow, with a minimum velocity of 2.00 fps and a maximum velocity of 2.18 fps and a maximum flow to depth ratio of 0.39 (Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025d). Therefore, EVMWD has adequate capacity to serve the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: Sewer System Analysis [Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2025d], Appendix L) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Riverside County Waste Management facilitates solid waste disposal services for Riverside County, and the City contracts with CR&R, Inc. Environmental Services for trash pickup. Lake Elsinore is served by a number of landfills, including El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2051. Badlands Landfill is expected to reach capacity by 2059 and Lamb Canyon Landfill by 2032 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2025).
Solid waste disposal is managed at the regional level; therefore, generation of solid waste within the City, including by the proposed project, is one part of a regional issue. The project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, including Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project construction divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. The project is anticipated to meet or exceed this requirement during construction. The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing landfills, and recycling and green waste collection would reduce the overall solid waste generated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, CalRecycle 2025; LEMC)
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989 as amended) under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated by January 1, 2000, and 50 percent diversion each year following. As of 2006, the City achieved a 50 percent waste diversion rate. In addition, Chapter 14.12 of the LEMC requires that project applicants divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris; the project would meet or exceed this requirement. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts associated with solid waste would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR, LEMC, Public Resources Code) XX. WILDFIRE
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Refer to Item IX(f). Potential impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan; County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan [County of Riverside Emergency Management Department 2024])
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? (Less Than Significant Impact)
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? (Less Than Significant Impact) 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? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ mapping for Riverside County and Figure 3.10-2 (City of Lake Elsinore Wildfire Susceptibility) of the General Plan EIR (City 2011c), the project site is in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and portions of the site are located within a High and VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025).
Emergency management services are overseen by the RCFD and CAL FIRE. While the project would require the expansion of the adjacent roadways, this would not exacerbate wildfire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project site is not located within an area that would be subject to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes in post-fire conditions. Additionally, the project would 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. With the implementation of existing building code requirements and adequate fire protection services, impacts from wildfire on the proposed development would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. (Sources: General Plan EIR)
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
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? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Potentially significant impacts to the environment resulting from the proposed project have been identified for biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources related to sensitive wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds, and wildlife corridors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2. The project is not expected to impact resources related to major periods of California history or prehistory. Based on the presence of cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site and the cultural sensitivity of the area, however, the project would have the potential to impact unknown subsurface cultural resources and/or TCRs. Due to underlying geological formations that have potential to contain fossils, the project would have the potential to impact paleontological resources.
With implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 and MM GEO-1, however, impacts to unknown subsurface cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, the project would not 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.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8, and MM GEO1. 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)? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).
As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in potentially significant projectspecific impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, land use and planning, noise, and tribal cultural resources; however, project-related effects either would be avoided by incorporation of project design measures or mitigated to levels below significance.
As discussed in Item III, Air Quality, the project would not result in air pollutant emissions during construction or operation that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds; the project would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions for which the region in non-attainment (O3, PM10, and PM2.5).
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
As described in Item IV, Biological Resources, project construction could result in potentially significant direct and/or indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species, burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors, offsite riparian areas, and migratory birds and their habitat. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act) and implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2. Other development in the project area also would be required to comply with applicable environmental laws and mitigation requirements. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has been adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the wildlife agencies, is largely designed to address potential cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from development in the western portion of the County through assembly of a comprehensive reserve system. Based on the project-specific mitigation measures that would be implemented and on the existence of an approved region-wide conservation plan, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative biological resources impact.
As discussed in Items V, Cultural Resources, and XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project would not adversely affect known cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts could occur if archaeological resources, paleontological resources, TCRs, and/or human remains are disturbed during ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction. While it is possible that unknown cultural and paleontological resources may be encountered during construction, mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 and MM GEO-1 have been included that would reduce impacts to these resources to below a level of significance. Accordingly, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact.
As discussed in Item VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative GHG impact.
Impacts related to noise exposure to future project residents from cumulative traffic volumes on roadways surrounding the project site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of MM LU-1 and MM LU-2.
Additionally, as discussed in Item XVII, Transportation, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative VMT impact.
The proposed project is consistent with the site’s Commercial Mixed Use land use designation and underlying zoning. Therefore, incremental increases in impacts to the environment would be within the thresholds set by the General Plan and supporting planning and regulatory documents. Furthermore, the project would sufficiently mitigate potentially significant impacts through mitigation measures MM BIO1 and MM BIO-2, MM CUL-1 through CUL-8, MM GEO 1, and MM LU-1 and MM LU-2. When considering potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, together with the impacts of other present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8, MM GEO-1, and MM LU-1 and MM LU-2.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
The project would not result in substantial fugitive dust emissions or expose individuals to hazardous materials or hazardous sites. Impacts related to noise exposure to future project residents would be reduced Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
to a less-than-significant level through implementation of MM LU-1 and MM LU-2. There would be no other potentially significant impacts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project would also adhere to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines applicable to each of the environmental issue areas analyzed herein. As evidenced by the Initial Study, no other substantial adverse effects on human beings, either indirectly or directly, would occur as a result of project implementation.
Mitigation Measures: MM LU-1 and MM LU-2.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
HELIX Environmental Planning
Tim Belzman, Principal Planner
Molly Ryan, Environmental Planner
Luis Cabrera Medina, Environmental Planner
Rebecca Kress, Senior GIS Specialist
City of Lake Elsinore
Damaris Abraham, Community Development Director
Nancy Huynh, Principal Planner
Tamara Harrison, Associate/Technical Manager (adjunct staff) Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
VII. REFERENCES
The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Except as noted, they are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674-3124.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA)
2025a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for The Dexter Villages Project. April 11. 2025b Paleontological Assessment for the Dexter Village Project. April 11.
Cadre Environmental, Inc.
2025 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 23.05-Acre Dexter Village Project Site. March 22.
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2022 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16. 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/Land%20Use%20Handbook_0.pdf.
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2025 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2025 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2025 SWIS Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed March 21.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2025 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa.
2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.
City of Lake Elsinore (City)
2023 City of Lake Elsinore GIS Zoning Map. Available at http://davis.lakeelsinore.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d78b8d4d4fd24df1b864fd0538e83 019.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
2022 Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide. November 14. Available at:
https://www.lake-elsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/2373/Traffic-Impact-AnalysisPreparation-Guide-PDF. 2011a City of Lake Elsinore Business District Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/2227/30-Business-District-PDF. 2011b City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/465/Lake-Elsinore-General-Plan. 2011c City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. Available at: http://www.lake-elsinore.org/city-hall/citydepartments/community-development/planning/lake-elsinore-general-plan/general-plancertified-eir. 2011d City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/469/Lake-Elsinore-Climate-Action-Plan. 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Available at: https://www.lakeelsinore.org/DocumentCenter/View/3149/2009ParksandRecreationMast?bidId=. 2005 Plan Preparation and Design Manual. Revised May 13, 2015 and July 23, 2018.
County of Riverside Emergency Management Department
2024 Emergency Operations Plan. Available at: https://rivcoready.org/about-emd/plans.
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD)
2020 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://evmwd.com/who-weare/water-resources/.
Environmental Audit, Inc.
2021 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Vacant Lots Totaling Approximately 23.44 Acres. December 1.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
2025 National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5 529aa9cd.
GeoTek, Inc.
2024 Updated Geotechnical Report. October 3.
2022 Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Proposed Cove Apartment Project. January 18.
LSA
2025a Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report, June 2025. 2025b Noise and Vibrations Impact Report, September 2025. 2025c Dexter Village Project Traffic Impact Study, April 14, August 2025.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
Proactive Engineering Consultants, Inc.
2025a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Dexter Village. October 20December. 2025b Preliminary Drainage Report to Support the Dexter Village Project. September 12. 2025c Water System Analysis Dexter Village. May 20.
2025d Sewer System Analysis Dexter Village. June 11.
Riverside County
2015 Riverside County General Plan.
Riverside County Fire Department
2025 Riverside County Fire Stations. Available at: https://www.rvcfire.org/resources/firestations.
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency 1999 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Available at: https://rctlma.org/western-riverside-county-multiple-species-habitatconservation-plan-mshcp-2#3.3.3.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) 2019 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. June. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
2020 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/post/2020-2045-rtpscs-connectsocal-transportation-conformity-determination.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2023 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-qualitysignificance-thresholds.pdf. 2022 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
2016 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. 2009 Localized Significance Thresholds Mass Rate Lookup Tables. Revised October 21.
Available from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2008 Final Localized Significance Methodology. July. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Dexter Village Project – IS/MND
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census
2024 QuickFacts, Lake Elsinore city, California; Wildomar city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lakeelsinorecitycalifornia,wildomarcitycalif ornia/PST045219.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist has been prepared for the Dexter Village project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented, (2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure, and (3) retention of records in the Dexter Village project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Program, but also allows the City of Lake Elsinore (City) flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented and generally involves the following steps:
• The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate persons for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures.
• Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures.
• Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.
• The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals.
Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1, Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction 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.
Pre-construction
Survey
Prior to
commencement
of construction
Qualified
Biologist,
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Planning and
Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
MM BIO-2, Preconstruction 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.
Pre-construction
Survey
Prior to
commencement
of construction
Qualified Biologist,
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Planning and
Engineering Depts.
Date: __________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Cultural Resources
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 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 re-burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in NonDisclosure 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 Assessment of
Resources
During
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Construction
Contractor,
Project
Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor,
Planning and
Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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 applicant/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 all activities that must be completed and procedures that must be followed regarding cultural resources associated with this project. The CRMP document shall be provided to the Community Development Director or their designee for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit.
The CRMP provides procedures to be followed and are to ensure that impacts on cultural resources will not occur without procedures that would reduce the 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 all earth-moving activities are observed and shall be on-site during all grading activities for areas to be monitored including off-site Construction
Monitoring
Program
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
and during
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Project
Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor,
Planning Dept.
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5
and location of inspections will be determined by the Project Archaeologist, in improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency 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 all 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 any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training and all 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 any artifacts recovered; an inventory of any resources recovered; updated DPR forms for all sites affected by the development; final disposition of the resources including GPS data; artifact catalog and any additional recommendations. A final
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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.
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.
Disposition of
Resources
During
Construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Construction
Contractor,
Project
Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor,
Planning and
Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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.
Construction
Monitoring
Program
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
and during
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer, Tribal
Monitor, Planning
and Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
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.
Project Records After
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Project
Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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).
Assessment,
Treatment, and
Disposition of
Human Remains
During
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Construction
Contractor,
Project
Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor,
Riverside County
Coroner, Planning
Dept.
Date: ___________
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).
Non-Disclosure
of Resource
Reburials
During and
after
construction
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Riverside County
Coroner
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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.
Tribal
Consultation
Before Issuance
of Grading
Permits
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Pechanga Band of
Indians
Date: ___________
Geology and Soils
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 Paleontological
Resources Impact
Program
Prior to grading Project Applicant/
Developer,
Project
Paleontologist,
Community
Development
Director
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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.
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.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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.
Land Use/Planning
MM LU-1, Balcony Noise Barriers. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a minimum seven-foot-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 foot-high 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.
Building Plans Prior to
issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Planning and
Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DEXTER VILLAGE PROJECT
Dexter Village Project December 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Process
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
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 exterior-to-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.
Exterior-tointerior Noise
Analysis
Prior to
issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Project Applicant/
Developer,
Acoustical
Analyst, Planning
and Engineering
Depts.
Date: ___________
Refer to MM BIO-1 above.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Refer to MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-8 above.
Comment Letter A – The California Department of Toxic Substances Control
City Responses to Comment Letter A
A-1: This comment summarizes the proposed project and introduces the comments addressed in responses A-2 through A-4. Refer to responses A-2 through A-4 below regarding specific comments on the MND. As the comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
A-2: The commenter notes that sites formerly used for agriculture can contain residual contaminants of concern that should be identified and remediated prior to residential development. There is no indication that previous land uses at the project site have resulted in releases of hazardous wastes/substances. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (attached as Appendix F) was prepared for the project to assess the historical use of hazardous substances on the project site. Based on a review of historical aerial maps contained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, it appears that a small area in the southern portion of the site was used for small-scale agriculture generally between 1978 and 1990. Additionally, the Phase I ESA states that under normal application practices and with the passage of time, agricultural chemicals typically degrade and no longer pose a health risk. Given the small scope of agricultural uses on the project site and the amount of time that has passed since agricultural use ceased, the Phase I ESA assessed that no further action is required for the site at this time. A brief discussion of this has been added to Section IX, Issue b on page 64 of this Final IS/MND.
A-3: The commenter recommends documentation of the origins of the soil and fill material for the site and states that, if applicable, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use. As discussed in Section II(B) of this Final IS/MND, grading would be balanced on site, resulting in no import or export of soil. The soil and fill import testing measures requested in this comment do not apply to the project. No revisions to the environmental analysis are required.
A-4: The commenter states that the City should consider soil testing, as mentioned in comment A-2, and address any identified contamination through an Environmental Site Assessment or self-certified local agency. As discussed in response A-2 above, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the project which determined that no further action is required for the site at this time. Refer to response A2 above for more details. No additional revisions to the environmental analysis are required.
A-5: The comment consists of closing statements that do not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
Comment Letter B – The Southern California Gas Company
City Responses to Comment Letter B
B-1: The commenter requests that the applicant notify SoCalGas of any excavation or demolition activities near their existing facilities along 3rd Street and Dexter Avenue and suggests early coordination for any natural gas needs. The City acknowledges this request – SoCalGas would be notified of any excavation or demolition activities near their existing facilities. As the comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, no further response is required.
Comment Letter C – Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility City Responses to Comment Letter C
C-1: This comment contains introductory statements and summarizes the proposed project, but does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required. Refer to responses C-2 and C-3 below regarding specific comments on the Draft IS/MND.
C-2: The comment states that the Draft IS/MND fails to adequately assess potentially significant impacts to the environment, and requests preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because there is a fair argument that the project may have adverse environmental effects. However, no specifics, facts, or other evidence is provided to support this assertion. The conclusions and supporting analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND that state the proposed project would not result in significant environmental effects are supported by substantial evidence contained in the record. Project impacts are adequately analyzed and assessed based on established methodologies and identified CEQA significance thresholds. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures are identified that would avoid or reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
C-3: The City acknowledges the ability for the commenter to supplement comments prior to final hearings on the project.
Comment Letter D – Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
City Responses to Comment Letter D
D-1: This comment contains introductory statements and summarizes the proposed project, but does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
D-2: This comment summarizes the role and authority of the Santa Ana Water Board, but does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
D-3: The commenter requests a field survey to document the presence or absence of hydrological indicators for waters of the State. The presence or absence of hydrological indicators has already been assessed for the project site in conjunction with the formal jurisdictional delineation. As discussed in Section IV, Issue c of the Draft IS/MND, a Biological Resources Compliance Analysis was completed for the project to assess the potential for jurisdictional features on the project site and is attached as Appendix B to this Final IS/MND. A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted on the project site and a surrounding 300-foot area on September 20, 2023 to identify potential wetland and non-wetland waters of U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, potential wetland and non-wetland waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and streambed and riparian habitat subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW. No jurisdictional features were identified on the project site. No additional analysis is required.
D-4: The comment consists of closing statements that do not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
Comment Letter E – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City Responses to Comment Letter E
E-1: This comment contains introductory statements and summarizes the proposed project, but does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
E-2: This comment request certain actions be taken for operation and maintenance of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) facilities, including submittal of environmental documents to District for review, notation of drainage easements on final maps, and submittal of storm drain and hydrological plans to the District for approval. These requests are standard District requirements.
All required coordination with the District would be completed as part of the permit approval process, as enforced through the project’s conditions of approval. No further response is required.
E-3: The comment consists of closing statements that do not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
Comment Letter F – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City Responses to Comment Letter F
F-1: The commenter notes that the project’s proposed stormwater connections could be considered an extension of the District’s 78-inch RCP Dexter Avenue Lateral to Third Street Channel Stage 2, and operation and maintenance of the facilities must be coordinated with the District. An encroachment permit would also be required and mitigation would be needed should any proposed storm drain connection exceed the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities. The project would add the following condition of approval to address this requirement: “The applicant must obtain an encroachment permit for any construction related activities occurring within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District right of way or facilities, namely, the 78-inch RCP Dexter Avenue Lateral to Third Street Channel Stage 2. 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 to the satisfaction of the District.” A brief discussion of this condition of approval has been added to Section X, issue c, number iii on page 67 of this Final IS/MND.
Responses to SAFER Comment Letter
On January 16, 2026, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supports Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) arguing that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Dexter Village Project (project) is inadequate due to unaddressed potential impacts to biological resources and air quality, and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. The responses below address the primary concerns from the submitted letter, which is attached.
Biological Resources
Pages 4 through 10 of the comment letter assert that:
1. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.
a. The MND fails to adequately assess the baseline conditions for biological resources on the Project site.
b. The MND failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on habitat loss, wildlife movement, traffic-wildlife collisions, cat predation, bird-window collisions, and cumulative impact.
c. The MND’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.
Response:
1. Refer to responses to a through c below regarding the adequacy of the existing analysis. The MND adequately assesses baseline conditions, identifies the potential biological impacts of the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. a. The project’s biological analysis follows standard practices to determine baseline conditions, including a literature review and field survey. In addition, the MND identifies mitigation consisting of pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl and nesting birds to ensure that updated surveys for the identified species with potential to occur on the project site would be conducted prior to construction (MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2). The commenter’s claim that additional sensitive species would be identified with additional surveys is based on a linear regression that reaches a theoretical maximum number of potential species on the site. This calculation is not based on project-specific information and is speculative. The existing analysis was conducted according to the procedures outlined in the CEQA Guidelines and by the City, and the baseline conditions used in the MND are adequate.
b. The project is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, noncontiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area. The Pacific Flyway is large regional migration pathway. The project would not prohibit the use of the Pacific Flyway by migrating birds.
CEQA requires an analysis of reasonably foreseeable direct/indirect effects of a project and requires a factual nexus between a project and biological impacts. The commenter uses general data that is not specific to the project site or the project location to make claims about traffic-wildlife collisions, cat predation, and bird-window collisions. An analysis of these issues is not required under the CEQA Guidelines or by the City, and the commenter uses speculative claims and data that do not provide substantial evidence that suggests an EIR is required. CEQA does not require proof that a regional plan or regulation fully achieves its biological protection goals before it can be relied upon for an impact analysis. The project follows the relevant processes to provide a basis of substantial evidence for the project’s significance conclusion (surveys, fees, avoidance, etc.) and identifies mitigation when necessary to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The project’s cumulative impact analysis is sound.
c. The commenter asserts that the project’s mitigation measures are inadequate because they rely on the MSHCP; pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl (MM-BIO-1) are premature; construction during the nesting season must be avoided to only the “maximum extent feasible” (MM-BIO-2); and three days is not enough time to identify all avian nest sites (MM-BIO-2). The mitigation measures do not rely on the MSHCP; they require consultation with CDFW (MM-BIO-1) and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code (MM-BIO2). The burrowing owl surveys in MM-BIO-1 are required to be conducted within 30 days of project construction to ensure that there are no active burrows on the site. Breeding season surveys are not required because, even if a breeding season survey were completed, a pre-construction survey would still be needed to identify the current status of burrowing owls on the site before construction could begin. MM-BIO-2 encourages avoidance of construction during the nesting season to the maximum extent feasible, but if construction must occur during the nesting season, MM-BIO-2 describes the pre-construction survey that must be completed for nesting birds. Potential impacts to nesting birds would be adequately mitigated under MM-BIO-2. Finally, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (MM-BIO-2) are required within three days of project construction, not across three days. This is to identify the most current nests on the project site before construction begins.
The project site contains mostly low-lying grasses with occasional trees and shrubs. One survey would be sufficient to identify the current nests on the project site. The mitigation measures were formulated by qualified biologists with expert knowledge of the species identified in those mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are adequate.
Air Quality
Pages 10 through 12 of the comment letter assert that:
1. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Health Impacts from Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter
2. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Emissions of ROGs
Response:
1. This comment suggests that the air quality analyses are inconsistent with OEHHA recommendations for technical review. It is noted that the commenter’s concern over potential impacts is based on an AERSCREEN model. The purpose of the AERSCREEN model is to screen for the possibility of a potential impact. A number of points need to be made regarding such a modeling approach.
First, the AERSCREEN model is widely acknowledged (including by the USEPA) as being conservative (see https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screeningmodels#aerscreen and https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/screening/aerscreen/aerscreen_userguide.pdf).
AERSCREEN does not account for spatial relation, geography, or local meteorology. It looks at a hypothetical sensitive receptor located within 100 meters and assesses impact as if that receptor is downwind of the source. Rather than being precise about source and receptor locations (both of which are critical in assessing real potential impact), it simply takes the worst-case emissions information (regardless of where it would be generated on site and whether it would move over time) and assumes that there is a receptor within 100 meters, regardless of whether of whether airflow actually goes in that direction. For this reason, the AERSCREEN run completed in support of the comment overestimates the potential concentration of TACs and, therefore, the corresponding health risk values. The project’s emissions modeling was conducted consistent with industry standards, and no exceedance of the identified pollutant thresholds were identified; therefore, no HRA is required.
Furthermore, though OEHHA’s guidance recommends evaluation of short-term projects, that guidance supports HRAs written for the purpose of AB2588 inventories and focuses on stationary sources associated with facilities such as automobile body shops, gasoline service stations, power plants, or treatment facilities.
Any given construction activity resulting in emissions would occur on a given portion of the over 23-acre site for a relatively short duration. For instance, a grader may be operating within 100 meters to the closest receptor on a given day, but the next it could very well be on the other side of the site over a quarter-mile away. This is not a stationary source.
OEHHA’s guidance recognizes that “The local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program in permitting decisions for shortterm projects such as construction or waste remediation.” The analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report are not intended to support permitting decisions by the local air district.
There are also issues associated with the information entered into the AERSCREEN model by the commenter. For instance, the screening modeling undertaken by the commenter modeled both on- and offsite exhaust PM10 emissions as occurring on site. This has the effect of overestimating emissions that would occur on site and would therefore result in increased concentrations at the downwind sensitive receptor.
Not only would the off-site PM10 exhaust emissions occur farther away from the site itself, and therefore the receptors in question, the analysis also characterizes all exhaust PM10 emissions as being emitted from diesel vehicles. This is inaccurate in terms of vehicular mix as all of the construction period PM10 would not stem from diesel fuel burning sources. This has resulted in an overestimation of DPM emissions. These input errors result in model output that is not accurate and is inapplicable to the Project.
2. The commenter specifically claims that values used in air quality analysis associated with land use size and construction phase lengths were inconsistent with information in the MND or unjustified. The land use size was not changed, but rather relied upon CalEEMod defaults based on land use type and number of dwelling units. Dr. Rosenfeld’s own updated analysis assumed the same square footage.
Regarding phase lengths, Dr. Rosenfeld states, “For each model, we proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed 18-month and 14- month construction durations, respectively.” However, review of Dr. Rosenfeld’s updated model shows this not to be the case. The Phase 1 model, which results in the claimed ROG exceedance, comes short of the 18-month duration and the only phase length altered was for the building construction activity. While most phase durations were revised in the Project’s analysis, the greatest change was to the architectural coatings phase, which was altered to increase the duration and include overlap with the building construction and paving phases, as noted in the CalEEMod outputs justification responses and the footnotes of Table J of the air quality report prepared by LSA. This is common practice.
Taken as a whole, the record demonstrates that the MND and its supporting technical studies identify potential impacts and apply established methodologies and CEQA thresholds used by the City that are consistent with accepted scientific and technical industry standards. The MND identifies feasible, enforceable mitigation measures that reduce all impacts to less than significant. The issues raised in the January 16, 2026 SAFER letter rely on speculation, unsubstantiated estimates, or disagreement with methodology rather than substantial evidence of a significant effect. Under CEQA’s fair argument standard, conflicting expert opinion or conjecture is not, by itself, substantial evidence of a significant effect where the lead agency’s analysis is based on established methodologies and thresholds and enforceable environmental commitments. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may cause a significant effect not already mitigated, and an EIR is not required.
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 COVER SHEET | CS
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 INDEX SHEET | INDX
Sheet Index
SHEET TITLE SHEET # SHEET TITLE SHEET # SHEET TITLE SHEET # Cover Sheet
Sheet Index
Illustrative Site Plan
Prototype Enlargements
Open Space Exhibit
Parking & Circulation - MultiFamily Site
Parking & Circulation - SFD & Townhome Site
Circulation Exhibit
E.V. Parking Exhibit
Fire Access & Mitigation Exhibit
Fuel Mod
Overall Conceptual Landscape Plan
Conceptual Landscape Plan - MultiFamily Site
Conceptual Landscape Plan - SFD & Townhome Site
Rec Center Enlargement - SFD & Townhome Site
Rec Center Enlargement - Apartments Site
Fence & Wall Plans
Fence & Wall Elevations - Retaining Condition
Fence & Wall Elevations - Retaining Condition
Fence & Wall Elevations - Retaining Condition
Vehicular Entries & Monument Signage Elevations
Trash Enclosure - Elevations
Trash Pick Up Exhibit
6-Pack Site Plan
6-Pack Plan 1 Floor Plan
6-Pack Plan 1 Roof Plan
6-Pack Plan 2 Floor Plan
6-Pack Plan 2 Roof Plan
6-Pack Plan 3 Floor Plan
6-Pack Plan 3 Roof Plan
6-Pack Plan 1 Americana Elevations
6-Pack Plan 1 French Country Elevations
6-Pack Plan 1 Santa Barbara Elevations
6-Pack Plan 2 Americana Elevations
6-Pack Plan 2 French Country Elevations
6-Pack Plan 2 Santa Barbara Elevations
6-Pack Plan 3 Americana Elevations
6-Pack Plan 3 French Country Elevations
6-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Elevations
6-Pack Sections
8-Pack Site Plan
8-Pack Plan 1 Floor Plan
8-Pack Plan 1 Roof Plan
8-Pack Plan 2 Floor Plan
8-Pack Plan 2 Roof Plan
8-Pack Plan 3 Floor Plan
8-Pack Plan 3 Roof Plan
8-Pack Plan 4 Floor Plan
8-Pack Plan 4 Roof Plan
8-Pack Plan 1 Americana Elevations
8-Pack Plan 1 French Country Elevations
8-Pack Plan 1 Santa Barbara Elevations
8-Pack Plan 2 Americana Elevations
8-Pack Plan 2 French Country Elevations
8-Pack Plan 2 Santa Barbara Elevations
8-Pack Plan 3 Americana Elevations
8-Pack Plan 3 French Country Elevations
8-Pack Plan 3 Santa Barbara Elevations
8-Pack Plan 4 Americana Elevations
8-Pack Plan 4 French Country Elevations
8-Pack Plan 4 Santa Barbara Elevations
8-Pack Sections
UA River Cover Shot
UA River Plan 1 Floor Plan
UA River Plan 2 Floor Plan
UA River Plan 3 Floor Plan
UA River 7-Plex Composite Floor Plans
UA River 7-Plex Composite Roof Plans
UA River 7-Plex Americana Townhome Elevations
UA River 7-Plex Americana Townhome Elevations & Perspective UA River 7-Plex Santa Barbara Townhome Elevations
UA River 7-Plex Santa Barbara Townhome Elevations & Perspective UA River Section & Balcony Screening
Apartments Cover Shot
Apartments Unit Floor Plans
Apartments Bldg A Composite Floor Plan - Level 1
Apartments Bldg A Composite Floor Plan - Level 2
Apartments Bldg A Composite Floor Plan - Level 3
Apartments Bldg A - Roof Plan
Apartments Bldg B Composite Floor Plan - Level 1
Apartments Bldg B Composite Floor Plan - Level 2
Apartments Bldg B Composite Floor Plan - Level 3
Apartments Bldg B - Roof Plan
Apartments Bldg A - Elevations
Apartments Bldg B - Elevations
Apartments Bldgs A/B - Side Elevations, Section, & Balcony Scn Apartments Bldg A - Front Perspective
Apartments Bldg A - Front Perspective
Apartments Bldg A - Rear Perspective
Clubhouse Cover Shot
Clubhouse Building Floor Plan - Level 1
Clubhouse Building Floor Plan - Level 2
Clubhouse Building Roof Plan
Clubhouse Building Elevations
Clubhouse Building Elevations
Clubhouse Building Sections
Clubhouse Building Sections
Clubhouse Building Perspective - Exterior
Clubhouse Building Perspective - Exterior
Clubhouse Building Perspectives - Interior
Clubhouse Perspective
Rec Center Cover Shot
Rec Center Building Floor Plan
Rec Center Building Elevations
Rec Center Building Roof Plan & Perspective
Rec Center Perspective
Rec Center Perspective
Pool Building Floor Plan & Elevations
General Location Map
Site Map
Tentative Tract Map
Preliminary Grading Plan
Conceptual Onsite Utilities
Conceptual Offsite Utilities
Maintenance Exhibit
Phasing Plan Exhibit
Tentative Tract Map Phasing Exhibit
A2.0
A2.1
A2.2
A2.3
A2.4
A2.5
A2.6
A2.7
A2.8
A2.9
A2.10
A2.11
A2.12
A2.13
A2.14
A2.15
A2.16
A2.17
A2.18
A2.19
A2.20
A2.21
A3.0
A3.1
A3.2
A3.3
A3.4
A3.5
A3.6
A3.7
A3.8
A3.9
A3.10
A4.0
A4.1
A4.2
A4.3
A4.4
A4.5
A4.6
A4.7
A4.8
A4.9
A4.10
A4.11
A4.12
A4.13
A4.14
A4.15
A5.0
A5.1
A5.2
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
A5.6
A5.7
A5.8
A5.9
A5.10
A5.11
A6.0
A6.1
A6.2
A6.3
A6.4
A6.5
A7.1
1 2-3
4-7
8-10
11-12
13-15
16 17
18 CS
INDX
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP6
SP7
F1
F2
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
A1.0
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A1.7
A1.8
A1.9
A1.10
A1.11
A1.12
A1.13
A1.14
A1.15
A1.16
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN | SP 1
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 PROTOTYPE ENLARGEMENTS | SP 2
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
UP
UP
181716151413121110987654321
UP
181716151413121110987654321
UP
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 05 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
PROTOTYPE ENLARGEMENTS | SP2
3/32"=1'-0"SCALE
0 16 32
NORTH
10'
10'
10'
19'
DRIVEWAY
19'-6"
24'
ALLEY
10'10'
10'
10'
10'
19'-4"
19'-4"
5'-6" 5'-6"
4' 4'
8'
4' 4'
8'
4' 4'
8'
PLAN 1
4' 4'
8'
PLAN 2
PLAN 3 PLAN 3
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
PRIVATE STREET PRIVATE STREET
TYPICAL 6-PACK CLUSTER TYPICAL 8-PACK CLUSTER
PLAN 3 PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 2
PLAN 4 PLAN 4
10'
10'
10'
10'
5'
5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
4'
4'
4'
4' 4'
4' 4' 4' 4'
8' 8'
8'
4'
8'
4'
8'
8'
4'
13'
10'
10'
13'
24'
ALLEY
29'
GARAGE TO GARAGE
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
UNIT UTILITIES (TYP.)
UNIT UTILITIES (TYP.)
NORTH
0 40 80
3/32”’=1’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT | SP 3
POOL
SPA POOL
CLUB
LAWN
CLUBHOUSE
32'
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
24'
FIRE LANE
R.O.W. R.O.W.
15' R.O.W.
R.O.W.
24' 24'
60'
28'
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
DEXTER AVENUE
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
RESIDENT
ONLY
ENTRY
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
14'-5"19'-5"
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 33
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
30'
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN 3
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
Refrigerator
4 WATER
DETENTION
BASIN
1 32' 28'
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
28'
24'
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
28' 28'
4 4
WATER
DETENTION
BASIN
2 171'-1"
26'
25'
THIRD STREET R.O.W.
R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE
7'
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P.L.
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
CLUBHOUSE34'
34'
FIRE / RESIDENT
ONLY ENTRY
RESIDENT
EXIT
ONLY
10 10
10 14
10 34'
34'
24'
FIRE LANE
BASIN
6 24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
21 22
18 20'
20'
20'
CALL
BOX
6 8
7 7
8 2
6 3
24'
FIRE LANE
LEASING
PARKING
VISITOR
LEASING
PARKING
LEASING
PARKING
8' 24'
24' 24' 24' 24' 28'
24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'
24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'
MAIL /
PARCELS
ROOM
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 5
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 3
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 4
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 2
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 6
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 1
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
BLDG 8
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
BLDG 7
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
R=45'
R=24'
AB52
SITE
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
STAGING AREA
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
KE ELSINORE | CA
BROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
E 09 | 12 | 25
EXTER VILLAGE
OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT | SP3
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
20,009 SF
28,859 SF
14,238 SF 14,490 SF
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 PARKING & CIRCULATION - MULTIFAMILY SITE | SP 4 POOL
DEXTER AVENUE
26'
25'
THIRD STREET
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE
7'
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P.L.
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
CLUBHOUSE
34'
34'
FIRE / RESIDENT
ONLY ENTRY
RESIDENT
EXIT
ONLY
10 10
10 14
10 34'
34'
24'
FIRE LANE
BASIN
6 24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
21 22
18 20'
20'
20'
CALL
BOX
6 8
7 7
8 2
6 3
24'
FIRE LANE
LEASING
PARKING
VISITOR
LEASING
PARKING
LEASING
PARKING
MAIL /
PARCELS
ROOM
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 5
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 3
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 4
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
2A 1 2B 1 3A
BLDG 2
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 6
BUILDING 'B' / 3-STORY (25 UNITS)
BLDG 1
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
BLDG 8
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
BLDG 7
BUILDING 'A' / 3-STORY (35 UNITS)
R=45'
R=24'
R=24'
R=45'
R=24'
R=45'
R=24'
R=45'
R=24'
R=24'
R=45R
R=24'
R=45'
AB52
SITE
21 R40'-0"
9'
18'
24' DRIVE AISLE
23'
8'
24' FIRE LANE
0 1"=40'-0"SCALE
40 80
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET SP8
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
AIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 05 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
PARKING AND CIRCULATION - MULTIFAMILY SITE | SP4
PARKING LEGEND
ENCLOSED PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE SPACE 226 SPACES
OPEN ON-STREET COMMON PARKING SPACE 205 SPACES
OPEN ON-STREET COMMON ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE 7 SPACES PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SPACE 2 S[ACES
TOTAL 440 SPACES
TYPICAL 90° PARKING DIMENSION TYPICAL PARALLEL PARKING DIMENSION NORTH
0 40 80
1’=40’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 PARKING & CIRCULATION - SFD & TOWNHOME SITE | SP 5
SPA POOL
CLUB
LAWN
CLUBHOUSE
32'
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
24'
FIRE LANE
R.O.W. R.O.W.
15'
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
24' 24'
60'
28'
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
RESIDENT
ONLY
ENTRY
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
14'-5"19'-5"
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
24'
FIRE LANE
24'
FIRE LANE
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
30'
PLAN 3
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN 3
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
Refrigerator
4 WATER
DETENTION
BASIN
1 32' 28'
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
28'
24'
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
28' 28'
4 4
WATER
DETENTION
BASIN
2 171'-1"
8' 24'
28' 24' 24' 24' 24'
24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'
24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'
R=24'
R=45'
R=24'
R=45'
R=24'
R=24'
R=45'
R=45'
R=24' R=45'
R=45'
R=24'
R=24'
R=45'
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
STAGING AREA
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
9'
18'
24' DRIVE AISLE
23'
8'
24' FIRE LANE
0 1"=40'-0"SCALE
40 80
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET SP7
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
PARKING & CIRCULATION SFD & TOWNHOME SITE | SP5
PARKING LEGEND
ENCLOSED PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE SPACE 442 SPACES
OPEN ON-STREET COMMON PARKING SPACE 55 SPACES
OPEN ON-STREET COMMON ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE 2 SPACES OPEN PRIVATE PARKING SPACE (PRIVATE DRIVEWAY) 148 SPACES TOTAL 647 SPACES
TYPICAL 90° PARKING DIMENSION
TYPICAL PARALLEL PARKING DIMENSION
NORTH
0 40 80
1’=40’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CIRCULATION EXHIBIT | SP 6
POOL
SPA POOL
CLUB
LAWN
CLUBHOUSE
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
R.O.W. R.O.W.
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
1 4
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
4 4 2
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P.L.
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
10 10
10 14
10 6
21 22
18 6
8 7
7 8
2 6
3 3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
2A 1 2B 1 3A
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
CIRCULATION EXHIBIT SP6
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
MAIN GATE / MAIN ENTRANCE
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
MAIN GATE
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
MAIN GATE
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
SECONDARY GATE
FIRE DEPARTMENT AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE
RESIDENT EXIT ONLY
VEHICULAR GATE
SECONDARY GATE
FOR RESIDENT ONLY
ENTRY & EXIT VEHICULAR GATE
FIRE ACCESS LOOP ROAD
(SHADED STREET AREA)
FIRE ACCESS LOOP ROAD
(SHADED STREET AREA)
FIRE HYDRANT
R=24'
R=45'
150' FIRE HOSE PULL (TYP).
NO PARKING IN FRONT OF GARAGE.
(RED CURB - NO PARKING SIGN TO BE
PROVIDED)
NO PARKING IN FRONT OF GARAGE.
(RED CURB - NO PARKING SIGN TO BE
PROVIDED)
R E D C U R B - N O P A R K I N G I N - F R O N T O F G A R A G E
R E D C U R B - N O P A R K I N G I N - F R O N T O F G A R A G E
R E D C U R B - N O P A R K I N G I N - F R O N T O F G A R A G E
R E D C U R B - N O P A R K I N G I N - F R O N T O F G A R A G E FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH FH
FH FH
FH
FIRE APPARATUS TURNING RADII:
24' WIDE PATH WITH A 24' INSIDE
RADIUS AND 45' OUTSIDE RADIUS
150' HOSE PULL DISTANCE
FIRE TRUCK
MAIN ENTRANCE
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
DEXTER AVE.
3RD ST.
2ND ST.
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 E.V. PARKING EXHIBIT | SP 7
POOL
SPA POOL
CLUB
LAWN
CLUBHOUSE
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
1 4
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
4 4 2
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
10 10
10 14
10 6
21 22
18 6
8 7
7 8
2 6
3 3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
2A 1 2B 1 3A
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
E.V. PARKING EXHIBIT SP7
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
DEXTER AVE.
3RD ST.
2ND ST.
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FIRE ACCESS & MITIGATION EXHIBIT | F1 NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
1 4
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
4 4 2
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
10 10
10 14
10 6
21 22
18 6
8 7
7 8
2 6
3 3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
2A 1 2B 1 3A
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
FIRE ACCESS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F1
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH FH
FH FH
FH
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FUEL MOD | F2
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
1 4
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN PLAN
2 3
PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
Refrigerator
4 4 2
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
10 10
10 14
10 6
21 22
18 6
8 7
7 8
2 6
3 3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
2A 1 2B 1 3A
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
FUEL MODIFICATION LOCATION EXHIBIT F2
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
FUEL MOD ZONE NOTES
Note 1
The most south easterly portion of the project is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), (LRA) Lake Elsinore in, Riverside County CA. The more northerly and majority of the site is within a Moderate Severity Zone.
West of the Project site is also within a VHFHSZ
Note2
2022 Fire Code Chapter 49, additions to Landscape Plans for plant species, spacing etc.
Zone 0 Ember Resistant Zone as required not a part of CFC49.
An area starting at the structure envelope extending 5 feet outward. This zone includes the area under and around all attached decks, and requires the most stringent wildfire fuel reduction. This area shall be kept clear of combustibles. Zone 0 has not been fully defined by the Board of Forestry and should not contain vegetation until further guidance is provided
Sec 4906.3 Exhibit
Landscape plans shall contain the following:
1.Delineation of the 100-foot (30.5 m) fuel management zones from all structures.
2.Identification of existing vegetation to remain if any and proposed new vegetation.
3.Identification of irrigated areas.
4.A plant legend with both botanical and common names, and identification of all plant material symbols.
5.Identification of ground coverings within the 30-foot (9144 mm) zone.
Sec 4906.4 Vegetation.
All new vegetation shall be fire-resistant vegetation in accordance with this section.
Exception: Trees classified as non-fire-resistant vegetation complying with Section 4906.4.2.1.
To be considered fire-resistant vegetation, it must meet at least one of the following:
1.Be identified as fire-resistant vegetation in an approved book, journal or listing from an approved organization.
2.Be identified as fire-resistant vegetation by a licensed landscape architect with supporting justification.
3.Plants considered fire-resistant vegetation and approved by the local enforcing agency.
Zone 1; 0 to 30 feet from the Structure
Sec 4906.4. Shrubs.
All new plantings of shrubs shall comply with the following:
1.Shrubs shall not exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in height.
2.Groupings of shrubs are limited to a maximum aggregate diameter of 10 feet (3048 mm).
3.Shrub groupings shall be separated from other groupings a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm).
4.Shrub groupings shall be separated from structures a minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm).
5.Where shrubs are located below or within a tree's drip line, the lowest tree branch shall be a minimum of three times the height of the understory shrubs or 10 feet (3048 mm), whichever is greater.
Sec 4906.4. Trees.
Trees shall be managed as follows within the Zone 1, 0 to 30-foot area of a structure:
1.New trees shall be planted and maintained so that the tree's drip line at maturity is a minimum of 10 feet (3048 mm) from any combustible structure.
2.The horizontal distance between crowns of new trees and crowns of adjacent trees shall not be less than 10 feet (3048 mm).
3.Existing trees shall be trimmed to provide a minimum separation of 10 feet (3048 mm) away from chimney and stovepipe outlets per Title 14, Section 1299.03.
Sec 4906.4.2 Non-fire-resistant vegetation.
New trees not classified as fire-resistant vegetation, such as conifers, palms, pepper trees and eucalyptus species, shall be permitted provided the tree is planted and maintained so that the tree's drip line at maturity is a minimum 30 feet (9144 mm) from any combustible structure.
Zone 2 30 to 100 feet, is a reduced fuel zone and is designed to reduce the potential behavior of an oncoming fire by reducing the flame heights, and the potential for ember generation and radiant heat exposure to the structure.
14'-6"
14'-10"
11'-3"
5'
71'-5"
73'-1"
18'-3"
66'-0"
65'-10"
20'-1"
74'-7"
55'-1"
55'-0"
70'-4"
17'-1"
17'-10"
17'-1"
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
DEXTER AVE.
3RD STREET
2ND STREET
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 OVERALL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN | L1 NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - MULTIFAMILY SITE | L2 NORTH
0 40 80
1’=40’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - SFD & TOWNHOME SITE | L3 NORTH
0 40 80
1’=40’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER ENLARGMENT - SFD & TOWNHOME SITE | L4 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER ENLARGMENT - MULTIFAMILY SITE | L5 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FENCE & WALL PLANS | L6 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF. REF.
UP
UP
REF. REF. UP UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S
SHOWER
AREA COVERED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
POWDER
CLUBHOUSE
COLLONADE
UP UP REF.
UP
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
4 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
1 4
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
PLAN
3 PLAN
2 PLAN
1 Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator PLAN
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
3 PLAN
2 Refrigerator
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
1 PLAN
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
1 PLAN
2 PLAN
PLAN
3 2
PLAN
Refrigerator
4 4 2
6 4
UP
UP
POOL EQMT.
MEN'S WOMEN'S SHOWERS
6 9
10 10
10 14
10 6
21 22
18 6
8 7
7 8
2 6
3 3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
3A 1 2B 1 2A 2A 1 2B 1 3A
2A 1 2B 1 3A
21 REF.
UP
UP
REF.
T
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
T
T
P.L.
MAIL MAIL MAIL MAILMAIL MAIL MAIL MAIL
R40'-0"
0 60
1"=60'-0"SCALE
120
NORTH
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 12 | 25
DEXTER VILLAGE
FENCE & WALL PLAN | L6
RETAINING CONDITION - FENCE AND WALL LEGEND:
CMU RETAINING WALL WITH T.S. FENCE ON TOP - (SHEET L8, DETAIL 4) CMU RETAINING WALL WITH VINYL FENCE ON TOP - (SHEET L8, DETAIL 3 / SHEET L9, DETAIL 1) CMU RETAINING WALL WITH CMU BLOCK WALL ON TOP - (SHEET L8, DETAIL 1) CMU RETAINING WALL WITH COMBO WALL (CMU+TEMPERED GLASS) ON TOP - (SHEET L9, DETAIL 2) CMU RETAINING WALL WITH COMBO WALL (CMU+VINYL FENCE) ON TOP - (SHEET L8, DETAIL 2)
FREE STANDING - FENCE AND WALL LEGEND
6' HIGH DECORATIVE SPLIT FACE CMU WALL - (SHEET L7, DETAIL 6) 6' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL PERIMETER FENCING. COLOR TO BE BLACK - (SHEET L7, DETAIL 2) LOT FENCING. 6' HIGH PRIVACY STYLE VINYL FENCE. COLOR TO BE TAN - (SHEET L7, DETAIL 3) 3'-6" HIGH STUCCO PATIO WALL. COLOR TO MATCH BLDG. - (SHEET L7, DETAIL 1) 6' HIGH GLASS POOL FENCE - (SHEET L7, DETAIL 5)
REAR YARD ACCESS VINYL GATE. COLOR TO BE TAN
6' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL PEDESTRIAN / FIRE ACCESS GATE. COLOR TO BE BLACK 6'-6" HIGH X 16" SQ. SPLIT FACE PILASTER
PROJECT MONUMENT SIGNAGE WALL - (SHEET L10, DETAIL 7)
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
VISITOR AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE FEATURE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
FIRE DEPARTMENT AND RESIDENT
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
RESIDENT EXIT ONLY VEHICULAR GATE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
RESIDENT ONLY
ENTRY & EXIT VEHICULAR GATE
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-10)
A
A
B B
C C
D
D
E E
F F
G G
CLUSTER MAILBOX LOCATION
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-7)
CLUSTER MAILBOX LOCATION
(SEE ELEVATION ON SHEET L-7)
171'-6"
14'-4"
14'-10"
H H
I I
DEXTER AVE.
3RD ST.
2ND ST.
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FENCE & WALL ELEVATIONS - RETAINING CONDITION | L7 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FENCE & WALL ELEVATIONS - RETAINING CONDITION | L8 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 FENCE & WALL ELEVATIONS - RETAINING CONDITION | L9 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 VEHICULAR ENTRIES & MONUMENT SIGNAGE ELEVATIONS | L10 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 TRASH ENCLOSURE - ELEVATIONS | L11
NORTH
0 60 120
1’=60’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 TRASH EXHIBIT | L12
NORTH
0 40 80
1’=40’ - 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK SITE PLAN | A1.0
0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
1 38
1 39
40 1
47 1
4 1
4 "
24'
-
0 "
2 REF. REF.
PU
REF.
PU
UP
REF.
UP
REF.
UP
UP
REF.
PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 3
PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3
PRIVATE YARD PRIVATE YARD PRIVATE YARD
FENCE
FENCE
PRIVATE YARD PRIVATE YARD PRIVATE YARD
FENCEFENCE
FENCEFENCE
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 6-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
2 | 2 | 2022 SITE PLAN A0.0
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 6-PACK CLUSTER
1/8" = 1'-0" 1 Site
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 1 FLOOR PLAN | A1.1
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 1 ROOF PLAN | A1.2
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12 5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 2 FLOOR PLAN | A1.3
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN | A1.4
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12 5:12
7:12 7:12
5:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN | A1.5
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 3 ROOF PLAN | A1.6
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12 5:12
5:12 5:12
3:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 1 AMERICANA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.7 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 1 FRENCH COUNTRY TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.8 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 1 SANTA BARBARA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.9 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 2 AMERICANA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.10 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 2 FRENCH COUNTRY TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.11 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 2 SANTA BARBARA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.12 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 3 AMERICANA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.13 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 3 FRENCH COUNTRY TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.14 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK PLAN 3 SANTA BARBARA TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS | A1.15 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
26-8”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 6-PACK SECTIONS | A1.16
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
BUILING SECTION - PLAN 1 BUILING SECTION - PLAN 2
BUILING SECTION - PLAN 3
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK SITE PLAN | A2.0
0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
13 14
15 16
20 19
18 17
24'-0" 24'-0"
20'-0"
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PLAN 4
UP
PLAN 1
PU
DN
UP
PLAN 2
DN
UP
PLAN 1
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PLAN 4
PU
DN
DN
UP
2 NALP
PLAN 2
PLAN 3 PLAN 3
PRIVATE YARD
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE - 18 ACRES 8-PACK
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
2 | 2 | 2022 SITE PLAN A0.0
COASTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES | 21-153 8-PACK CLUSTER
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 1 FLOOR PLAN | A2.1
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 1 ROOF PLAN | A2.2
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12 5:12
5:12
5:12 5:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 2 FLOOR PLAN | A2.3
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN | A2.4
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12 5:12
5:12
3:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN | A2.5
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 3 FLOOR PLAN | A2.6
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
5:12
5:12
5:12 5:12
3:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 4 FLOOR PLAN | A2.7
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 4 FLOOR PLAN | A2.8
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
3:12
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 1 AMERICANA ELEVATIONS | A2.9 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 1 FRENCH COUNTRY ELEVATIONS | A2.10 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 1 SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS | A2.11 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 2 AMERICANA ELEVATIONS | A2.12 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 2 FRENCH COUNTRY ELEVATIONS | A2.13 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 2 SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS | A2.14 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 3 AMERICANA ELEVATIONS | A2.15 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 3 FRENCH COUNTRY ELEVATIONS | A2.16 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 3 SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS | A2.17 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 4 AMERICANA ELEVATIONS | A2.18 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 4 FRENCH COUNTRY ELEVATIONS | A2.19 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK PLAN 4 SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS | A2.20 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
27-0”
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 8-PACK SECTIONS | A2.21
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
BUILDING SECTION - PLAN 1 BUILDING SECTION - PLAN 2
BUILDING SECTION - PLAN 3 BUILDING SECTION - PLAN 4
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER COVER SHOT | A3.0
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER FLOOR PLAN 1 | A3.1
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
Refrigerator
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
181716151413
W/D
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
181716151413
48' - 0"
43' - 0"
20' X 20'
MIN.
2 CAR
GARAGE
5' - 0"
21' - 4"
LIVING
13' 3 1/2" X 13' 1"
KITCHEN
16' 11" X 8' 10 3/4"
DINING
14' - 4" 7' - 0"
23 SF
PORCH
TRASH AREA
BATH 1
BED 3
10' 0" X 10' 0"
BATH 2
21' - 4"
CLOSET
BED 1
14' 0" X 13' 11"
44' - 0"
TECH LINEN COFFEE BAR
PWDR
ROOF
PLAN 1
NET AREA
First Floor 463 SF
Second Floor 884 SF
Grand total 1347 SF
Garage 446 SF
Porch 35 SF
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
DATE:
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE
6/12/2024 PLAN 1 A1.0
FAIRBROOKE COMMUNITIES | 24-046
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER FLOOR PLAN 2 | A3.2
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
Refrigerator
UP
DN 18
17 16
15 14
13 12111098765
2 8' - 0"
3 4
21' - 4"
3' - 0"
14' - 4" 7' - 0"
21' - 4"
PANTRY
20' X 20'
MIN.
2 CAR
GARAGE
2468
2868
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR
CA
N
T
ELIE
V
E
R
2' - 0"
3080
KITCHEN
13' - 3" x 11' - 4"
13' - 3" x 12' - 0"
LIVING
DINING
7' - 0" x 15' - 0"
MEDIA
PWDR
RANGE
SINK
PORCH
PASEO
ALLEY
8050 XOX
20' - 2"
TRASH AREA
23 SF
49' - 0"
3 4 MEDIA
BED 1
15' - 0" x 13' - 6"
BATH 1
W.I.C.
BED 3
10' - 0" x 11' - 9"
BED 2
10' - 0" x 13' - 0"
W.I.C.
BATH 2
2650 SH. 4050 SL. 4050 SL. 2468
CL.
26682668
2668
2468
2468
2468
5668 CL.
ROOF
PORCH
ROOF
5050 SL. 5050 SL.
6068
LAUNDRY
NET AREA
First Floor 513 SF
Second Floor 895 SF
Grand total 1408 SF
PLAN 2
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
Garage 470 SF
Porch 21 SF
EXTER VILLAGE
E ELSINORE
11 | 05 | 2021 PLAN 2 A2.0
OOKE COMMUNITIES | 24-046
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER FLOOR PLAN 3 | A3.3
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
Refrigerator
UP DN
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4 5
23' - 6"
2' - 2"
14' - 4" 9' - 2"
23' - 6"
2 6' - 0" 21' - 0"
RANGE
SINK
20' x 20'
MIN.
2 CAR
GARAGE
2050 SH. 5050 SL. 5050 SL.
3050 SH.
4050 SL.
3080
2868
16080 ROLL-UP
GR DR
ELE
C
T
RICAL
13' - 3" x 10' - 4"
KITCHEN
13' - 3" x 11' - 0"
LIVING DINING
9' - 4" x 19' - 0"
PORCH
MEDIA
PASEO
ALLEY
FIRE RISER
TRASH AREA
25 SF
47' - 0"
4 5
SEAT
MEDIA
MEDIAMEDIA
4050 SL. 4050 SL.
2050 SH. 2050 SH.
3650 SH. 2050 SH. 2350 SH. 2350 SH. 2350 SH. 2650 SH.
6050 SL. 6050 SL.
5068
2668
2468
26682468
2468
7068 CL.
2668
24682468
7068 CL.
2668
BED 2
11' - 0" x 12' - 4"
BED 3
11' - 0" x 12' - 4"
CL. BATH BATH CL.
W.I.C.
M. BED
13' - 3" x 13' - 3"
DECK
M. BATH
LNDRY.
E:
EXTER VILLAGE
KE ELSINORE PLAN 3
11 | 05 | 2021
24-046 A3.0
BROOKE COMMUNITIES
NET AREA
First Floor 530 SF
Second Floor 971 SF
Grand total 1501 SF
PLAN 3
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
Garage 483 SF
Porch 38 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX COMPOSITE FLOOR PLANS | A3.4 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
181716151413
UP UP UP 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
181716151413
UP UP
PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3
153'-9"
51'-0"
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
181716151413
DN
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DN
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
18 DN
17 16
15 14
13 12111098765
18 DN
17 16
15 14
13 12111098765
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
181716151413
DN 18
17 16
15 14
13 12111098765
PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3
50'-10"
153'-9"
FMC WILLOW AND GRAND PARK
2ND LEVEL
1ST LEVEL
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX COMPOSITE ROOF PLANS | A3.5 5:12 AC AC
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
LOW SLOPE ROOF - 3/8 :12 MIN.
AC AC
5:12
9:12
9:12 9:12 9:12
9:12
9:12
9:12
5:12
9:12
9:12
5:12
4:12
4:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12
9:12
4:12
5:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF - 3/8 :12 MIN.
5:12
AC AC
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
LOW SLOPE ROOF - 3/8 :12 MIN.
AC AC
5:12
9:12
9:12 9:12 9:12
9:12
9:12
9:12
5:12
9:12
9:12
5:12
4:12
4:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12
9:12
4:12
5:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF - 3/8 :12 MIN.
0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
ROOF PLAN - SANTA BARABARA
ROOF PLAN - AMERICANA
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX AMERICANA ELEVATIONS | A3.6 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
FRONT
REAR
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX AMERICANA ELEVATIONS & PERSPECTIVE | A3.7 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
PERSPECTIVE
LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION 31'-7"
31'-7"
31'-7"
31'-7"
LEFT RIGHT
PERSPECTIVE
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS | A3.8 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
FRONT
REAR
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
27'-3"
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
27'-3"
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER 7-PLEX SANTA BARBARA ELEVATIONS & PERSPECTIVE | A3.9 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
LEFT RIGHT
PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE
LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION
PERSPECTIVE
LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 UA RIVER SECTION & BALCONY SCREENING | A3.10 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
BUILDING SECTION - UA RIVER BUILDING SECTION
SCREENED BALCONY LOCATIONS
*ALL UNIT BALCONIES LOCATED ADJACENT TO DEXTER AVENUE SHALL HAVE 7’ SCREENING FOR NOISE MITIGATION.
SCREENING SHALL BE SOLID FRAMED WALL BASE WITH 1/2” THICK VIEW GLASS ABOVE, AT 7’ OVERALL HEIGHT ABOVE BALCONY FLOOR
SCREENED BALCONY - SANTA BARBARA
SCREENED BALCONY - AMERICANA
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS COVER SHOT | A4.0 APARTMENTS COVER SHEET | A4.0
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 10 | 11 | 24
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS UNIT FLOOR PLANS | A4.1
0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
REF
T DW
DW
REF
REF
T DW
REF
REF
REF
115 SF
BED 1
249 SF
KITCHEN / ENTRY
163 SF
LIVING / DINING
85 SF
DECK
40 SF
BATH 1
9 SF
STOR
3'x3'MIN
6' - 5 1/4"
114 SF
BED 2
139 SF
BED 1
60 SF
BATH 1
48 SF
BATH 2
391 SF
LIVING
91 SF
ENTRY
30 SF
W.I.C.
80 SF
DECK
Redundant
Room
KITCHEN / DINING
9 SF
STOR
3'x3'MIN
7' - 1"
122 SF
BED 2
164 SF
BED 1
238 SF
LIVING / DINING
191 SF
KITCHEN / ENTRY
93 SF
BATH 1
63 SF
W.I.C.
48 SF
BATH 2
80 SF
DECK
9 SF
STOR
3'x3'MIN
6' - 7"
197 SF
KITCHEN
134 SF
DINING
156 SF
LIVING
150 SF
BED 2
130 SF
BED 1
60 SF
BATH 2
61 SF
BATH 1
57 SF
W.I.C.
89 SF
DECK
9 SF
STOR
3'x3'MIN
7' - 0"
182 SF
DINING
175 SF
LIVING
151 SF
BED 1
117 SF
BED 3
106 SF
BED 2
63 SF
BATH 2
244 SF
KITCHEN
72 SF
BATH 1
53 SF
W.I.C.
102 SF
DECK
8' - 2 3/4"
3'x3'MIN
9 SF
STOR
7' - 2 3/4"
121 SF
BED 1
74 SF
BATH 1
67 SF
W.I.C.
118 SF
BED 3
106 SF
BED 2 64 SF
BATH 2 26 SF
IDF
553 SF
KITCHEN
134 SF
DINING
100 SF
DECK
7' - 4 1/2"
9 SF
STOR
3'x3' MIN
UNIT 1 UNIT 2A UNIT 2B
UNIT 2C UNIT 3A UNIT 3B
STACKED
WASHER/DRYER
STACKED
WASHER/
STACKED DRYER
WASHER/DRYER
STACKED
WASHER/DRYER
STACKED
WASHER/DRYER
STACKED
WASHER/
DRYER
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 | A4.2 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
T DW
REF
REF
T DW
REF
DW
REFREF
DW
T DW
REF
T DW
REF
UP UP
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
1-CAR
GARAGE
10' x 20'
200 SF
CORRIDOR
159 SF
ELEC RM
1-CAR
GARAGE
10' x 20'
200 SF
76 SF
DATA
77 SF
FIRE
FIRE CONN /
KNOX BOX
BUILDING A - LEVEL 1
2A 1 1 2B 1 1 2A
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 | A4.3 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
T DW
REF
TDW
REF
REFREF
DW
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
DW
T DWT DW
TDWTDW
REF
T DW
REFREF
TDWTDW
REF
T DW
REF
186' - 10 1/4"
82' - 10 1/2"
CORRIDOR
ELEC
IDF
BUILDING A - LEVEL 2
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
2A 1 1 2B 1 1 2A
2C 1 1 2B 1 1 2C
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 | A4.4 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
T DW
REF
TDW
REF
REF
REF
REF
DW
REF
REF
REF
REF
DW
REF
T DWT DW
TDWTDW
REF
T DW
REF
T DW
REFREF
TDWTDW
186' - 10 1/4"
82' - 10 1/2"
CORRIDOR
BUILDING A - LEVEL 3
2A 1 1 2B 1 1 2A
2C 1 1 2B 1 1 2C
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - ROOF PLAN | A4.5
0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF 3/8:12 MIN
MECH UNITS (TYP.)
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG B - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 | A4.6 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
UP UP
T DW
REF
T DW
REF
REF
DW
REF
REF
2A 1 2B 1 3A
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 35'
350 SF
1-CAR
GARAGE
10' x 20'
200 SF
CORRIDOR
159 SF
ELEC RM
FIRE CONN /
KNOX BOX
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
2-CAR
TANDEM
GARAGE
10' x 36'
360 SF
1-CAR
GARAGE
10' x 20'
200 SF
77 SF
FIRE
76 SF
DATA
BUILDING B - LEVEL 1
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG B - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 | A4.7 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
REF
T DW
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
DW
REF
REFREF
DN DN TDW TDW T DW T DW
UP UP REF
153' - 11 3/4"
82' - 10 1/2"
CORRIDOR
ELEC/IDF
STOR
BUILDING B - LEVEL 2
2A 1 2B 1 3A
2C 1 2B 1
3B
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG B - COMPOSITE FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 | A4.8 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
REF
T DW
REF
REF
REF
REF
DW
REF
REFREF
TDW
T DWT DW
DN DN REF TDW REF
153' - 11 3/4"
82' - 10 1/2"
CORRIDOR
STOR
STOR
ELEC
IDF
BUILDING B - LEVEL 3
2A 1 2B 1 3A
2C 1 2B 1 3B
UNIT AREAS
UNIT 1 657 SF
UNIT 2A 979 SF
UNIT 2B 1,022 SF
UNIT 2C 1,054 SF
UNIT 3A 1,349 SF
UNIT 3B 1,371 SF
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG B - ROOF PLAN | A4.9
0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:124:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF 3/8:12 MIN
MECH UNITS (TYP.)
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - ELEVATIONS | A4.10 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE 52'-2"
43'-6"
1ST FLOOR
11'-1"
2ND FLOOR
9'-1"
3RD FLOOR
10'-1"
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG B - ELEVATIONS | A4.11 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
50'-0"
43'-6"
1ST FLOOR
11'-1"
2ND FLOOR
9'-1"
3RD FLOOR
11'-1"
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDGS A/B - SIDE ELEVATIONS, SECTION, & BALCONY SCREENING | A4.12 0 8 16
1/8” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
MECH UNITS (TYP.)
40'-3"
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
SECTION / MECH SCREENING
SCREENED BALCONY LOCATIONS
SCREENED BALCONY - UNITS 1 & 2B SCREENED BALCONY - UNIT 2A *ALL UNIT BALCONIES LOCATED ADJACENT TO DEXTER AVENUE SHALL HAVE 7’ SCREENING FOR NOISE MITIGATION.
SCREENING SHALL BE SOLID FRAMED WALL BASE WITH 1/2” THICK VIEW GLASS ABOVE, AT 7’ OVERALL HEIGHT ABOVE BALCONY FLOOR URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - FRONT PERSPECTIVE | A4.13 APARTMENTS BLDG A - FRONT PERSPECTIVE 1 | A4.5
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 10 | 11 | 24
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - FRONT PERSPECTIVE | A4.14 APARTMENTS BLDG A - FRONT PERSPECTIVE 2 | A4.6
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 10 | 11 | 24
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 APARTMENTS BLDG A - REAR PERSPECTIVE | A4.15 APARTMENTS BLDG A - REAR PERSPECTIVE | A4.7
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 10 | 11 | 24
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE COVER SHOT | A5.0
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 | A5.1 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
Level 1 : 3,084 SF
Level 2 : 2,493 SF
Total : 5,577 SF (not including patios)
UP
UP
OPEN TO
ABOVE
OPEN TO
ABOVE
PLAY
LAWN
1041 SF
OPEN LEASING
185 SF
MNGR OFFICE
161 SF
MAIL/PARCEL
109 SF
OFFICE 2
42 SF
RR-O
31 SF
AV/IDF
112 SF
STORAGE 42 SF
RR-L
31 SF
CUST
677 SF
LOUNGE
ELEVATOR
MEP/UTIL
29 SF
ELEV EQ
COVERED ENTRY
PORCH
COVERED PORCH
LOUNGE
290 SF
KITCHEN
PARCELS + ACCESSIBLE COUNTER
MAILBOXES
MAILBOXES
1 A1.6
2 A1.6
1 A1.7
2 A1.7
3 A1.7
4 A1.7
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE NORTH
0 4 8
01/2024 LEVEL 1 PLAN A1.1
RBROOK COMMUNITIES
AKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 | A5.2 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
DN
DN
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
HEAVY WEIGHTS
RED CORD/ TCX TRANING
LIGHT CIRCUIT TRAINING
STRETCH & YOGA FLOOR
LIGHT WEIGHTS
1173 SF
GYM
357 SF
COVERED GYM
DECK
377 SF
COVERED CARIO
DECK
ELEVATOR
980 SF
CARDIO
MEP/UTIL
43 SF
RR-G
339 SF
OPEN TO BELOW
234 SF
INTERIOR
STAIRCASE
1 A1.6
2 A1.6
1 A1.7
2 A1.7
3 A1.7
4 A1.7
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE NORTH
048
01/2024 LEVEL 2 PLAN A1.2
RBROOK COMMUNITIES
AKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING - ROOF PLAN | A5.3 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
MECHANICAL WELL ELEV
OVERRUN
SKYLIGHT
1 A1.6
2 A1.6
1 A1.7
2 A1.7
3 A1.7
4 A1.7
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE NORTH
048
01/2024 ROOF PLAN A1.3
RBROOK COMMUNITIES
AKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
KEY MAP
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING - ELEVATIONS | A5.4 0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
33' - 1 1/2"
7' - 7 1/2" 12' - 0" 1' - 6" 12' - 0"
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE
048
07/01/2024 ELEVATIONS A1.4
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST / FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EAST / REAR ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING- ELEVATIONS | A5.5 0 4 8
1/4” = 1’ - 0” SCALE
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
7' - 7 1/2" 12' - 0" 1' - 6" 12' - 0"
33' - 1 1/2"
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
33' - 1 1/2"
12' - 0" 1' - 6" 12' - 0" 7' - 7 1/2"
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE
048
07/01/2024 ELEVATIONS A1.5
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
1 SOUTH / RIGHT ELEVATION
2 NORTH / LEFT ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING- SECTIONS | A5.6
0 4 8
1/4” = 1’ - 0” SCALE
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
MNGR OFFICE
AV/IDF
STORAGE
RR-L
LOUNGE
INTERIOR RR-G CARDIO
STAIRCASE
GYM
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
OPEN LEASING LOUNGE
COVERED GYM GYM OPEN TO BELOW CARDIO
DECK
COVERED CARIO
DECK
COVERED ENTRY
PORCH
COVERED PORCH
LOUNGE
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE
048
07/01/2024 SECTIONS A1.6
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
1 LONG SECTION 1
2 LONG SECTION 2
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING- SECTIONS | A5.7
0 4 8
1/4” = 1’ - 0” SCALE
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
COVERED ENTRY
PORCH
MAIL/PARCEL MNGR OFFICE
COVERED GYM
DECK
GYM GYM
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
OFFICE 2 OPEN LEASING
RR-O AV/IDF
GYM INTERIOR
STAIRCASE
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
OPEN LEASING
STORAGE
ELEVATOR
INTERIOR
STAIRCASE
OPEN TO BELOW
LEVEL 1 TOC
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2 TOS
13' - 6"
LEVEL 2 TOP
25' - 6"
CARDIO
KITCHEN LOUNGE LOUNGE
|
1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE
048
07/01/2024 SECTIONS A1.7
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAKE ELSINORE
DEXTER VILLAGE LEASING CLUBOUSE
1 CROSS SECTION 1
2 CROSS SECTION 2
3 CROSS SECTION 3
4 CROSS SECTION 4
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING PERSPECTIVE - EXTERIOR | A5.8 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING PERSPECTIVE - EXTERIOR | A5.9 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE BUILDING PERSPECTIVE - EXTERIOR | A5.10 URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 CLUBHOUSE PERSPECTIVE | A5.11
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER COVER SHOT | A6.0
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER BUILDING FLOOR | A6.1
0 4 8
1/4” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
KEY MAP
1,270 SF
262 SF
130 SF 130 SF
213 SF
45 SF
232 SF
498 SF
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER BUILDING ELEVATIONS | A6.2 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER BUILDING ROOF PLAN & PERSPECTIVE | A6.3 0 8 16
3/16” - 1’ - 0” SCALE
PERSPECTIVE
ROOF PLAN
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER PERSPECTIVE | A6.4
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 REC CENTER PERSPECTIVE | A6.5
URBAN
ARENA
DEXTER VILLAGE
LAKE ELSINORE | CALIFORNIA
FAIRBROOK COMMUNITIES | 24-046
DATE 09 | 22 | 25 POOL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS | A7.1 0 4 8
1/4” = 1’ - 0” SCALE
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
FLOOR PLAN
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP UP DN DNUP
DN
UP UP DN DN
THIRD STREET
PAVILLION
DEXTER AVENUE
BLDG. 4
CLUBHOUSE
STREET 'B'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
STREET 'C'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
STREET 'D'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
BLDG. 1
BUILDING "A"
3-STORY
(35 UNITS)
BLDG. 2
BUILDING "B"
3-STORY
(25 UNITS)
BLDG. 3
BUILDING "B"
3-STORY
(25 UNITS)
BLDG. 4
BUILDING "B"
3-STORY
(25 UNITS)
BLDG. 5
BUILDING "B"
3-STORY
(25 UNITS)
BLDG. 6
BUILDING "B"
3-STORY
(25 UNITS)
BLDG. 8
BUILDING "A"
3-STORY
(35 UNITS)
BLDG. 7
BUILDING "A"
3-STORY
(35 UNITS)
FF=17.44
FF=1288.30 FF=17.44
FF=1288.00
FF=1287.90 FF=1288.00
FF=1288.30 FF=1288.40
PAD=1292.5 PAD=1293.3 PAD=1297.5 PAD=1297.5 PAD=1301.6
PAD=1291.0
PAD=1291.2
PAD=1291.6
PAD=1292.0
PAD=1292.5
PAD=1292.9
PAD=1293.3
PAD=1293.7
PAD=1294.0
PAD=1293.7
PAD = 1293.3 PAD=1295.5
PAD=1296.0
PAD=1296.7 PAD=1300.7
PAD=1302.2
PAD=1300.9
PAD=1297.9
PAD=1297.1
PAD=1293.7
PAD=1292.9
PAD=1292.9
PAD=1292.1
PAD=1302.4
PAD=1302.0
PAD=1300.6
PAD=1300.0
PAD=1300.7
PAD=1301.2
PAD=1298.8 PAD=1301.7
PAD=1298.3
PAD=1297.7
PAD=1296.5 PAD=1297.1
PAD=1297.2
PAD=1297.8
PAD=1295.3 PAD=1298.2
PAD=1294.8
PAD=1294.2
PAD=1293.1 PAD=1293.6
PAD=1293.7
PAD=1294.3
PAD=1294.7
PAD=1292.8
PAD=1292.3
PAD=1291.9
PAD=1291.5
PAD=1293.6 PAD=1294.6 PAD=1296.0 PAD=1296.8 PAD=1298.8 PAD=1299.7 PAD=1301.6 PAD=1302.5 PAD=1306.2
PAD=1305.4
PAD=1304.6
PAD=1301.0
PAD=1301.5
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
UP
DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
CLUB LAWN
POOL
PAD=1302.2 PAD=1305.2 PAD=1305.0 PAD=1304.4 PAD=1304.3 PAD=1302.9 PAD=1302.7 PAD=1302.2
PAD=1303.3 PAD=1303.1
PAD=1302.5
PAD=1304.9
PAD=1303.6
PAD=1305.1
PAD=1303.8
PAD=1305.7
PAD=1304.3
PAD=1305.9
PAD=1304.5
PAD=1302.9
PAD=1301.6
PAD=1311.4
PAD=1309.9
PAD=1308.3
PAD=1308.1
PAD=1306.2
PAD=1305.6
PAD=1304.3
PAD=1303.7
PAD=1311.6
PAD=1310.0
PAD=1308.7
PAD=1307.1
PAD=1304.5
PAD=1303.8
PAD=1303.1
PAD=1302.4
PAD=1312.6
PAD=1311.1
PAD=1309.8
PAD=1304.0
PAD=1303.6
PAD=1303.0
PAD=1302.4
PAD=1303.6
PAD=1304.0
PAD=1304.7
PAD=1305.0 PAD=1304.8
PAD=1304.9
PAD=1304.3
PAD=1303.7
PAD=1303.6
PAD=1304.2
PAD=1304.4
PAD=1304.7 PAD=1305.5
PAD=1305.1
PAD=1304.2
PAD=1304.0 PAD=1303.9
PAD=1304.6
PAD=1305.2
PAD=1302.2 PAD=1305.7
PAD=1301.8
PAD=1301.2
PAD=1300.6
PAD=1302.5 PAD=1304.6 PAD=1305.5 PAD=1308.1 PAD=1308.8 PAD=1310.3 PAD=1310.4 PAD=1310.8 PAD=1310.6 PAD=1309.2 PAD=1308.6 PAD=1307.4 PAD=1313.2
PAD=1311.6
PAD=1310.2 PAD=1312.5
PAD=1313.9
PAD=1315.9 PAD=1315.4
PAD=1314.3
PAD=1313.0 PAD=1312.5
PAD=1313.8
PAD=1314.7 PAD=1315.4
PAD=1313.1
PAD=1311.9 PAD=1309.4
PAD=1310.7
PAD=1311.0 PAD=1312.3
PAD=1309.6
PAD=1308.5 PAD=1305.5
PAD=1306.6
PAD=1308.0
CLUBHOUSE
STREET 'B'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
STREET 'E'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
STREET 'D'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
STREET 'A'
(PRIVATE ROAD)
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
APARTMENT UNIT SUMMARY
SFD/TOWNHOME UNIT SUMMARY
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP UP DN DNUP
DN
UP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
BLDG. 8
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 7
BLDG. 2
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 3
BLDG. 5 BLDG. 6
CLUBHOUSE
39 40
42 41
43 45 44
46 48 47
49 50
51 52
53 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
146
140
142
STREET 'B'
STREET 'C'
STREET 'D'
LOT GTHIRD STREET
139
158 144
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38512
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
CLUBHOUSE
10 9 8
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
21 20
22 24 23
25 27 26
28 30 29
31 33 32
34 36 35
37 39 38
40 41
12 13
15 14
16 18 17
19 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101 102
103
104
105 106
107
108
109 110
111
112
113 114
116
117
130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118
138
141
115
143
STREET 'A'
STREET 'B'
STREET 'D'
STREET 'E'
LOT F
LOT H
142
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
CLUBHOUSE
10 9 8
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
21 20
22 24 23
25 27 26
28 30 29
31 33 32
34 36 35
37 39 38
40 41
12 13
15 14
16 18 17
19 42
43 45 44
46 48 47
49 50
62 63
64 65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101 102
103
104
105 106
107
108
109 110
111
112
113 114
116
117
137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
115
138
140 141
142
143
STREET 'A'
144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151
152 153 154 155 156 157
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 5
UNIT 6
UNIT 7 UNIT 8
UNIT 9
UNIT 10
UNIT 11
UNIT 12
UNIT 13
UNIT 14 UNIT 15
UNIT 16
UNIT 17
UNIT 18
UNIT 19
UNIT 20
UNIT 21 UNIT 22
UNIT 23
UNIT 24
UNIT 25
UNIT 26
UNIT 27
UNIT 28 UNIT 29
UNIT 30
UNIT 31
UNIT 32
UNIT 33
UNIT 34
UNIT 35 UNIT 36
UNIT 37
UNIT 38
UNIT 39
UNIT 40
UNIT 41
UNIT 42 UNIT 43
UNIT 44
UNIT 45
UNIT 46
UNIT 47
UNIT 48
UNIT 49 UNIT 50
UNIT 51
UNIT 52
UNIT 53
UNIT 54
UNIT 55
UNIT 56 UNIT 57
UNIT 58
UNIT 59
UNIT 60
UNIT 61
UNIT 62
UNIT 63 UNIT 64
UNIT 65
UNIT 66
UNIT 67
UNIT 68
UNIT 69
UNIT 70 UNIT 71
UNIT 72
UNIT 73
UNIT 74
UNIT 75
UNIT 76
UNIT 77 UNIT 78
UNIT 79
UNIT 80
UNIT 81
UNIT 82
UNIT 83
UNIT 84
STREET 'B'
STREET 'C'
STREET 'D'
STREET 'E'
LOT
F
LOT
H
52 53
51 139
158
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
TOWNHOME UNITS
UNIT NO.
1 2
3 AREA
1,508
1,423
1,230
PERIMETER
149
140
135
4 5
1,423
1,230
140
135
6 1,423 140
7 1,508 149
8 9
10 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
11 12
1,423
1,230
140
135
13 1,423 140
14 1,508 149
15 16
17 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
18 1,423 140
TOWNHOME UNITS
UNIT NO. AREA PERIMETER
19 1,230 135
20 1,423 140
21 1,508 149
22 23
24 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
25 26
1,423
1,230
140
135
27 1,423 140
28 1,508 149
29 30
31 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
32 33
1,423
1,230
140
135
34 1,423 140
35 1,508 149
36 37
38 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
39 40
1,423
1,230
140
135
41 1,423 140
42 1,508 149
UNIT NO.
43 44
45 AREA
1,508
1,423
1,230
PERIMETER
149
140
135
46 47
1,423
1,230
140
135
48 1,423 140
49 1,508 149
50 51
52 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
53 54
1,423
1,230
140
135
55 1,423 140
56 1,508 149
57 58
59 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
60 1,423 140
UNIT NO. AREA PERIMETER
61 1,230 135
62 1,423 140
63 1,508 149
64 65
66 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
67 68
1,423
1,230
140
135
69 1,423 140
70 1,508 149
71 72
73 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
74 75
1,423
1,230
140
135
76 1,423 140
77 1,508 149
78 79
80 1,508
1,423
1,230
149
140
135
81 82
1,423
1,230
140
135
83 1,423 140
84 1,508 149
LOT TABLE
LOT
A
B
C
D
E
AREA
11681.43
49955.36
9730.65
35658.87
5923.74
PERIMETER
473.76
2243.82
646.84
2026.17
485.41
DESCRIPTION
STREET 'A'
STREET 'B'
STREET 'C'
STREET 'D'
STREET 'E'
MAINTENANCE
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
MAINTENANCE
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
TOWNHOME UNITS
MAINTENANCE
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
TOWNHOME UNITS
MAINTENANCE
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
HOA
HOA
RCFC
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
MAINTENANCE
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
AREA
2906.46
2279.26
2431.14
2432.06
2459.58
2542.21
2222.93
2565.09
2576.88
2368.36
2283.00
2433.88
2225.67
2569.06
2576.52
2368.01
2283.37
2433.09
2225.02
2569.06
2576.52
2368.01
PERIMETER
210.08
191.44
197.36
198.47
199.01
201.69
188.91
241.84
242.35
194.74
191.32
197.35
189.03
242.00
242.30
194.72
191.34
197.32
189.00
242.00
242.30
194.72
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
AREA
2283.38
2433.09
2225.02
2569.06
2576.52
2368.01
2283.38
2433.09
2225.02
2569.06
2576.52
2368.01
2283.39
2433.10
2225.02
2569.06
2576.52
2368.01
2283.61
2432.89
2225.02
2569.06
PERIMETER
191.34
197.32
189.00
242.00
242.30
194.72
191.34
197.32
189.00
242.00
242.30
194.72
191.34
197.32
189.00
242.00
242.30
194.72
191.35
197.32
189.00
242.00
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
AREA
2576.52
2368.01
2283.40
2433.11
2225.02
3049.32
3398.06
2364.38
2215.21
1817.44
1644.75
2068.42
1645.05
1820.57
1645.95
1828.29
2643.17
2457.76
1940.69
1753.30
1975.49
2312.03
PERIMETER
242.30
194.72
191.34
197.33
189.00
245.10
259.63
194.55
188.56
172.59
165.67
182.68
165.70
172.75
165.76
174.59
214.63
193.56
179.34
172.28
180.64
209.03
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
AREA
1827.06
1648.35
2109.41
2308.24
1648.07
1830.41
2119.79
2112.86
1649.48
1827.37
2314.84
2308.92
1648.22
1829.44
2119.74
2112.83
1650.27
1827.41
2313.44
2308.20
1648.94
1831.73
PERIMETER
173.08
165.89
184.35
208.87
165.93
173.22
184.79
184.51
165.96
173.09
209.14
208.92
165.94
173.18
184.79
184.51
166.01
173.08
209.07
208.86
165.98
173.30
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
AREA
2123.47
2108.80
1648.17
1826.49
2314.02
2310.43
1648.31
1829.46
2119.44
2112.50
1650.27
1827.31
2313.68
2309.64
1649.00
1830.41
2121.42
2110.43
1649.49
1826.44
2315.94
2311.76
PERIMETER
184.97
184.32
165.88
173.04
209.09
208.95
165.95
173.18
184.78
184.50
166.01
173.08
209.08
208.93
165.99
173.22
184.87
184.40
165.96
173.04
209.15
209.00
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
AREA
1648.24
1829.51
2119.43
2377.43
1655.64
1830.22
1804.76
2548.17
2246.81
2399.04
2247.08
2400.85
2401.04
2246.46
2402.04
2399.80
2400.29
2247.85
2376.78
2401.68
2396.43
2276.60
PERIMETER
165.94
173.18
184.78
190.04
166.34
173.30
172.28
197.63
189.98
196.01
190.00
196.09
196.09
189.99
196.13
196.05
196.07
190.03
195.14
196.10
195.95
191.17
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
AREA
2401.62
2246.51
2402.97
2249.37
2551.63
19649.62
9757.97
13835.38
11320.37
13760.78
2244.74
6512.30
3112.13
3112.13
3112.13
3112.13
3112.13
3112.12
3697.29
3332.00
3331.99
3331.97
PERIMETER
196.12
189.99
196.16
190.10
197.75
645.82
532.84
527.36
472.55
1913.22
796.85
374.90
321.35
321.35
321.34
321.34
321.34
321.34
370.77
325.67
325.67
325.66
DESCRIPTION
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
CLUB HOUSE
WQ BASIN
WQ BASIN
WQ BASIN
LANDSCAPE AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
MAINTENANCE
LOT TABLE
LOT NO.
155
156
157
158
AREA
3331.83
3331.81
3331.79
7284.04
PERIMETER
325.65
325.65
325.65
404.95
DESCRIPTION
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
MAINTENANCE
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
HOA
HOA
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
HOA
6 151
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
DN
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP UP DN DN
UP
DN
UP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
THIRD STREET
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300 “ ”
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
UP
DN
UP UP DN DN
UP UP DN DN
UP UP DN DN
DEXTER AVENUE
SECOND STREET
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
DEXTER AVENUE
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP
DN
UP UP DN DN
BLDG. 8
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 7
PAVILLION
BLDG. 2
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 3
BLDG. 5 BLDG. 6
CLUBHOUSE
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 8
DEXTER AVENUE
3RD STREET
LEGEND
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
UP
DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN
CLUBHOUSE
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 7
DEXTER AVENUE
2ND STREET
LEGEND
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
18 DEXTER AVENUE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20
DEXTER AVENUE
DEXTER AVENUE - MATCHLINE 20+00
SEE SHEET 14
3RD STREET
1275-
1285-
1295-
1305-
-1275
-1295-1305
DEXTER AVENUE - MATCHLINE 20+00
SEE SHEET 10
-1285
PAVILLION
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
27 DEXTER AVENUE
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DEXTER AVENUE
DEXTER AVENUE - MATCHLINE 20+00
SEE SHEET 13
2ND STREET
SEE SHEET 15
1275-
1285-
1295-
1305-
-1275
-1285
-1295-1305
DEXTER AVENUE - MATCHLINE 20+00
SEE SHEET 9
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
17 2ND STREET
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2ND STREET
DEXTER AVENUE
SEE SHEET 14
1285-
1295-
1305-
-1275
-1285
-1295-1305
1275-
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
DN
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP UP DN
DN
UP UP DN DN
UP UP DN
DN
UP UP DN DN
UP UP DN DN
UP UP DN DN
LEGEND MAINTAINED BY QUANTITY:
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL. 30XX SL.
DN
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN LEGEND
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
60XX SL. 30XX SL. 60XX SL.
20XX FIX. 20XX FIX.
20XX FIX.
30XX SL.
30XX SL.30XX SL.
DN
DN DN
DN
UP
DN DN
UP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DNUP UP DN DN 10 9 8
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
21 20
22 24 23
25 27 26
28 30 29
31 33 32
34 36 35
37 39 38
40 41
12 13
15 14
16 18 17
19 42
43 45 44
46 48 47
49 50
62 63
64 65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101 102
103
104
105 106
107
108
109 110
111
112
113 114
116
117
137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
115
138
140 141
142
STREET 'A'
STREET 'B'
STREET 'C'
STREET 'D'
STREET 'E'
143
145 146 147 148 149 150 151
152 153
154
155 156 157
LOT
F
LOT
G
52 53
51 139
144
158
LEGEND
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300
Jan 19, 2026
City of Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore City Hall
130 S Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project “Dexter Village” on Dexter Ave.
Dear Lake Elsinore Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 451-unit housing development project at Dexter Avenue Between Second Street and Third Street, which includes 22 very low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), and the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”).
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.
Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.
Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to parking including parking setbacks, drive aisle width, block wall height, separation between single-family structures, location of trash enclosures for apartments, privacy, and minimum lot area. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
The Commission should be aware that should the City deny the project, and face a lawsuit, it may bear a severe financial burden pursuant to the HAA and DBL. If the City is found to have violated the HAA, it will be liable for attorney’s fees and cost of suit (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(ii)) in addition to other penalties. (See id. at subd. (k)(1)(B).) If a court finds that the City wrongfully denied requested waivers and concessions pursuant to the DBL, it will be liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivisions (d)(3) and (e)(1). As an example, the City of Berkeley was recently forced to pay $4 million after wrongfully denying a housing development project.
In addition to the provisions cited above, the HAA allows housing organizations like CalHDF to bring an enforcement suit. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(2).) If an enforcement lawsuit brought by a housing organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorney’s fees and costs. (Ibid.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide 2 of 3
housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
January 16, 2026
Via Email
John Gray, Chair
Jodi Peters, Commissioner
Jason Devor, Commissioner
Andrew Pease, Commissioner
Kyle Martin, Commissioner
Jessica Matie, Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission
City of Lake Elsinore
183 N. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: SAFER Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dexter Village Project (Application No. 2024-15)
Planning Commission Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
To Chair Gray and Honorable Planning Commissioners:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the mitigated negative declaration (“MND”), consisting of the Draft MND released in September 2025 and the Final MND released in October 2025, prepared for the Dexter Village Project (Application No. 2024-15) (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 6.5 at the Planning Commission’s January 20, 2026 meeting.
SAFER is concerned that approval of the Project and MND will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by failing to prepare a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) despite a fair argument thar the Project may result in significant impacts to biological resources, human health, and air quality. Furthermore, the MND fails to provide substantial evidence that the above impacts will be less than significant.
SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Ph.D., air quality expert Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). The written comments and CVs of Dr. Smallwood and Dr. Rosenfeld are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared instead of an MND if there is any substantial evidence that the Project may result in a significant impact, even if there is other contrary evidence. As discussed below, SAFER, with the assistance of the experts listed above, have roundly met that threshold. For that reason, SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission refrain from recommending approval of the Project and MND to the City Council at this time and, instead, direct staff to prepare an EIR prior to further consideration of this Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Dexter Village Project proposes a 451-unit residential development with 137 singlefamily units, 230 apartment units, and 84 townhomes on a 23.05-acre property located along Dexter Avenue between Second Street and Third Street in Lake Elsinore. on a 77.3 gross acre (66.3 net acre) site located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue at Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 620-170-009. The Project site is undeveloped and surrounded by 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.
The Project requires 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. Development would occur in two phases. The first phase consists of the single-family residential development on 16.40 acres on the central and southern portions of the site. The second phase consists of the multi-family residential development on 6.65 acres on the northern portion of the site.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
As the California Supreme Court held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-20.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.)
An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.
SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
(Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-74.) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
DISCUSSION
I. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.
Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts to biologic al resources. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded: (1) the MND failed to accurately assess baseline conditions for wildlife at the Project site; (2) the MND failed to assess or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts to wildlife from habitat loss, movement impacts, traffic-wildlife collisions, house cat predation, bird-window collisions, and cumulative impacts; and (3) the MND’s mitigation measures are inadequate.
A. The MND fails to adequately assess the baseline conditions for biological resources on the Project site.
Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with an M.S. degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the Project site to survey wildlife during daytime and evening on November 28 and December 2, 2025 (Ex. A, p. 2.) During those visits, Ms. Smallwood “walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, [she] strapped a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 10-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live.” (Id.) Ms. Smallwood detected thirty-three (33) different vertebrate species, eight (8) of which Dr. Smallwood has determined are “special status” species. (Ex. A, p. 3.) These special status species include: (1) Allen’s hummingbird (USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern); (2) Redtailed hawk (Bird of Prey); (3) American kestrel (Bird of Prey); (4) Nuttall’s woodpecker (USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern), and (5) California horned lark (MSHCP; CDFW SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Watch List). Ms. Smallwood also detected a canyon bat (Western Bat Working GroupModerate) and potentially a hoary bat (Western Bat Working Group- Moderate). (Id., pp. 8-9.) In contrast, the surveys conducted for the MND detected only thirteen (13) species total, none of which the MND found to be “special status.” (Ex. A, p. 13.) The fact that the MND’s surveys detected a fraction of the species detected by Ms. Smallwood underscores the inadequacy of the MND’s analysis and the need for an EIR with more robust surveys. (See id., pp. 13-16.) Indeed, Dr. Smallwood calculated that more thorough site visits would reveal an even greater diversity of wildlife. (Id., pp. 9-12.) Given more time to survey the site, Dr. Smallwood’s predicts that upwards of 111 species of wildlife, including 21 special-status wildlife species, would be observed on site. (Id., p. 11.) Based on his review of the MND and the site visits, Dr.
Smallwood concluded, “the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.” (Id.) In addition to the MND’s inadequate wildlife surveys, the MND’s review of available wildlife databases to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the Project site was inadequate. (Ex. A, pp. 17-19.) The MND relied on the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) to determine which species have potential to occur in the Project area. (Id., p.
17.) However, as Dr. Smallwood explains:
[T[he CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.
And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.
(Id., p. 18.)
Based on available databases (including CNDDB, iNaturalist, and eBird) and site visits, Dr. Smallwood found that “152 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential.” (Ex. A, p. 18.) The MND’s Biological Report only analyzed the occurrence potential for 33 special-status species, which amounts to only 22% of the special-status species identified by Dr. Smallwood. (Id..) Therefore, the MND screened out 118 of the special-status species known to occur at or near the Project site from further review. (Id.) For the 33 special-status species that were analyzed, the MND claims that all SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
but three have low/no potential to occur on site, even though eight of those species “have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, and another three species have been recorded within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site.” (Id., p. 19.) Further analysis is needed in a revised MND or EIR to address possible impacts to those species before determining that the Project will not result in significant impacts.
B. The MND failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on habitat loss, wildlife movement, traffic-wildlife collisions, cat predation, bird-window collisions, and cumulative impact.
Dr. Smallwood found that the MND failed to adequately discuss numerous significant impacts that the Project may have on biological resources, including habitat loss, wildlife movement, traffic-wildlife collisions, cat predation, bird-window collisions, and cumulative impacts. (Ex. A, pp. 28-42.) Dr. Smallwood’s analysis of the impacts to wildlife constitutes a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated impacts. As such, an EIR is required prior to approval of the Project.
1. Habitat loss and fragmentation
The MND failed to account for the reduction in productive capacity for wildlife that will result from habitat loss. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 35 species of vertebrate wildlife.” (Ex. A, p. 29.) Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project site contains approximately 214 nest sites for birds. (Id.) As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation from the Project, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the loss of 214 nest sites corresponds to 861 fewer fledglings per year and an overall loss of 968 birds per year, most of which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act . (Ex. B, p. 29.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[t]he loss of 968 birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.” (Id.) Dr.
Smallwood’s analysis establishes a fair argument that an EIR is required for the Project, not an MND.
2. Wildlife Movement
The MND failed to adequately assess the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement. (Ex.
A, p. 30) The MND admits that “[g]iven the location of Lake Elsinore within the City, there are a variety of birds that migrate seasonally through the City on the Pacific Flyway.” (MND, p. 36.) As Dr. Smallwood further explains, “The project site is situated within a valley feature that channels migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway, and to boot it is located near an important migratory destination in Lake Elsinore.” (Ex. A, p. 30.) Despite the wildlife known to move through the area, the MND claims that impacts to wildlife movement will be less than significant because“[n]o known linkages or other potential SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
wildlife movement corridors or travel routes occur within the project area.” (MND, p. 38.) By focusing on known linkages or corridors, the MND ignores that “ the CEQA standard applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors .” (Ex. A, p. 30.) By focusing on “the red-herring question of whether the site occurs within a movement corridor,” the MND ignores that the species detected on the project site had at some point moved to the site or that, at a minimum, the Project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during migration or dispersal of young. (Id.)
Furthermore, the MND did not include any study design or specific field method to quantify or characterize wildlife movement across the project site. (Ex. A, p. 30.) Dr. Smallwood explains:
A simple program of observation, for example, would have been to perform timed surveys on stations located at intervals across the site, and to have had observers plot wildlife travel paths on handheld maps. Another would be to use a thermalimaging camera to track and record animal movements at night, including terrestrial mammals, birds and bats. But [the MND] reports nothing like these types of observations, and its analysis of wildlife movement and whether the project would interfere with it is therefore limited to speculation. Speculation is an unsound basis for making important determinations.
(Id.) By failing to properly assess the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement, the MND “is incomplete, unsound, and misleading.” (Id.) As a result, the MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude that movement impacts will be less than significant.
3. Traffic-Wildlife Collisions
The MND fails to address the impacts to wildlife from collisions with traffic generated by the Project. This omission is important because, as Dr. Smallwood explains, Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. (Ex. A, p. 28.) According to the MND, the Project would result in 4,295,513annual vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). (Id., p. 33.) Based on the Project’s annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood estimates that traffic from the Project will kill at least 1,827vertebrates annually. (Id.) Especially due to the special-status species occurring and likely to occur at or near the Project, these collisions SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
represent a significant impact to wildlife that must addressed, discussed, and mitigated in a revised MND or EIR.
4. House Cat Predation
The MND fails to account for the impact to wildlife from the introduction of domestic cats to the area. As Dr. Smallwood explains:
In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts 1,660 new residents, but assuming the population is distributed proportional to square feet of floor space, then 36.7% (609) of new residents would dwell in apartments, and 1,051 would dwell in townhomes and single-family homes. This is important because Ma and McLeod (2023) found that only 15% of apartment owners allow their cats to roam free. The above rates of cat ownership applied to numbers of new residents who would allow their cats to roam free would predict 503 new free-ranging cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 61,366 vertebrate wildlife per year.
(Ex. A, p. 35.)
Furthermore, cats introduce Toxoplasma gondii, which is “a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals.” (Ex. A, p. 36.) Toxoplasma gondii can cause toxoplasmosis, which in severe cases can damage the brain, eyes, or other organs. (Center For Disease Control, About Toxoplasmosis, https://www.cdc.gov/toxoplasmosis/about/index.html.) Additionally, “[i]nfants infected [by Toxoplasma gondii] while still in the womb often have no symptoms at birth but can develop symptoms later in life.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[i]mpacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND.” (Ex. B, p. 36.) An EIR should be prepared that addresses this impact and to consider whether mitigating this impact is feasible through requirements on future residents constraining house cat ownership by, for example, requiring cats to remain indoors. (Id.)
5. Bird-Window Collisions.
The MND fails to account for the impact to bird species from collisions with the Project’s glass windows. The impacts from window collisions are important because such collisions “are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” (Ex. A, p. 36.) Dr. Smallwood calculated that the Project would result in 757 bird deaths per year due to collisions with the Project’s windows. (Id., pp. 38-39.) Dr. Smallwood concludes, “Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species.” (Id., p. 39.) Dr. Smallwood’s analysis constitutes a fair argument that the City must prepare an EIR for this Project, not an MND.
6. Cumulative Impacts
The MND’s analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources is flawed. The MND claims that cumulative impact will be rendered less than significant “through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act)…” (MND, p. 91.) However, the MND but it provides no explanation of how compliance with these permits would actually reduce impacts.
Similarly, the MND claims that cumulative impacts will be reduced due to other projects also complying with general regulatory requirements. (Id.) However, “all previous projects that underwent CEQA review and which were subsequently developed presumably also obtained all their required permits, yet wildlife continued to decline . . . If the [MND]’s argument was sound, then there would be no purpose to the CEQA’s requirement for cumulative impacts analysis.” (Id., pp. 39-40.) Indeed, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the MND’s logic “has been soundly refuted. (Id., p. 40.)
Additionally, the MND makes the error of relying on the Western Riverside County MSHCP to conclude that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (MND, p. 91.) However, the MND’s reliance on the MSHCP is not justified. The MND offers no explanation of how the MSHCP would reduce the specific cumulative impacts of this Project. Furthermore, the MND does not discuss any evidence of the effectiveness of the MSHCP at meeting its conservation goals. As of 2023, the MSHCP had fallen well short of its conservation goals, conserving only 44% of the goal acreage. (Ex. A, p. 41.) Furthermore, “[t]he evidence shows a dismal failure of the MSHCP to conserve burrowing owls, as the documented breeding population was 20 (16.67% of the target) in 2022 and 14 (11.67% of the target) in 2023, and only one (20%) Core Area contained at least five pairs in either year.” (Id.) In short, “[t]he MSHCP is not achieving its conservation goals for covered species of wildlife . . . [and] it is especially deficient in its conservation of species that lack coverage.” (Id.) Because the MND’s cumulative impact analysis relies on unsound reliance on regulatory compliance and the MSHCP, it cannot be relied up to conclude that the Project’s cumulative impacts will be less than significant.
D. The MND’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.
The MND”s mitigation measures are inadequate to ensure that the Project’s impacts to biological resources will be less than significant. Frist, as noted above, reliance on the MSHCP is misplaced due to the MSHCP current failure to meet its conservation goals. Second, Mitigation SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Measure BIO-1 (pre-construction focused surveys for burrowing owl) is premature because, according to CDFW, “the preconstruction survey needs to follow breeding season-surveys, and the breeding-season surveys need to be completed prior to the public circulation of the CEQA review document.” (Ex. A, p. 43.) Third, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (pre-construction nesting bird surveys) is inadequate because it only requires that construction during the nesting season be avoided “to the greatest extent feasible.” (MND, p. 37.) Furthermore, MM BIO-2 requires that surveys be taken within three days prior to construction, which “ would be too brief for detecting all avian nest sites.” (Ex. A, p. 44.)
Dr. Smallwood also suggests additional mitigation measures that must be applied to this Project to ensure that impacts to biological resources are minimized to the extent possible. (Ex.
A, pp. 45-47.) These measures include: (1) compensatory habitat protection; (2) biological monitoring during construction; (3) compensatory monetary mitigation for house cat predation, vehicle-wildlife collisions, and bird injuries ; (4) adherence to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy New York, and San Francisco, and compensatory monetary mitigation for wildlife rehabilitation; and (5) native landscaping. (Id.) II. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Health Impacts from Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter.
Air quality expert Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., reviewed the Project’s impacts to human health due to emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). Dr. Rosenfeld’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit B. Dr. Rosenfeld concluded that the MND failed to identify a significant impact from emissions of DPM. Due to this fair argument that the Project may result in significant health impacts, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project.
The MND’s analysis of the cancer risk posed by emissions of DPM was inadequate.
Although the MND compared the Project’s emissions to the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (“LSTs”) established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), LSTs do not address DPM emissions and the increased cancer risk resulting from DPM emissions. (See MND, pp. 32-33.) The MND fails to include a quantified health risk assessment (“HRA”) to measure the increased cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the Project. Instead, the MND relies entirely on a qualitative analysis of DPM, claiming that DPM emissions will not be significant because constructionrelated exposures are short term the Project is not located within 500 feet of I-10. (MND, pp. 33-
34.) As noted by Dr. Rosenfeld, CEQA requires that that the MND “correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.” (Ex. B, p. 6) However, such an analysis is not possible without a quantified HRA.
Dr. Rosenfeld prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts to human health from DPM during construction of the Project using AERSCREEN, a leading screeninglevel air quality dispersion model. (Ex. B, p. 6.) According to the MND’s air quality modeling SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
data, construction of the Project would result in 481 pounds of DPM over the total 788-day construction period. (Id., p. 7) Using that value, Dr. Rosenfeld conducted an HRA to calculate the increased cancer risk resulting from those DPM emissions to the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor located approximately 225 meters downwind of the Project site. (Id.) The HRA also utilized age sensitivity factors in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and to assess the risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. (Id., p. 8.)
Dr. Rosenfeld’s HRA found that increased cancer risk to infants during construction of the Project would be 52.7 in one million. (Ex. B, pp. 9-10.) Additionally, the increased cancer risk for a 30-year residential lifetime would be 55 in one million. (Id.) Each of the above increased cancer risks exceed SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million and, thus, establishes a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts. (Id., p. 10.) Due to this fair argument, CEQA requires that the City prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project.
III. An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Emissions of ROGs.
Dr. Rosenfeld found that the MND underestimated the Project’s emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Ex. B, pp. 1-5.) To estimate the Project’s emissions, the MND utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). (MND, p. 29.) CalEEMod relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. CEQA requires that any changes to the default values must be justified by substantial evidence.
Dr. Rosenfeld reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Ex. B, pp. 1-5.) As a result, the MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be less than significant.
Specifically, Dr. Rosenfeld found that the following values used in the MND’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the MND or otherwise unjustified:
1. Unsubstantiated changes to land use size (Ex. B, pp. 1-3.)
2. Unsubstantiated changes to construction phase lengths (Ex. B, pp. 3-5.) As a result of these errors, the MND underestimates the Project’s construction and operational emissions and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.
In an effort to accurately determine the Project’s construction-related, Dr. Rosenfeld prepared an updated CalEEMod that proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed 18-month and 14-month construction durations. (Ex. B, p. 5.) Dr.
SAFER Comment
Dexter Village Project
PC Agenda Item 6.5 (Jan. 20, 2026)
January 16, 2026
Rosenfeld’s updated analysis found that the Phase 1 of the Project would result in 111 pounds per day of construction-related ROG emissions, exceeding the 75 pounds per day significance threshold set by SCAQMD. (Ex. B, p. 6.)
Because Dr. Rosenfeld’s analysis finds that construction-related ROG emissions will exceed SCAQMD’s significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts. Due to this fair argument, CEQA requires that the City prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project.
CONCLUSION
SAFER and its experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts to biological resources, human health, and air quality. Furthermore, the MND failed to provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts to biological resources, human health, and air quality. For those reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission refrain from recommending approval of the project to the City Council and, instead, direct planning staff to prepare an EIR prior to further consideration of this Project.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
4 January 2025
RE: Dexter Village IS/MND
Dear Mr. Flynn,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Dexter Village Project. I understand the project would add 84 townhomes, 137 single-family homes, and 230 apartments, and a 1,270-sf recreation building on 23.44 acres at the east corner of Dexter Ave and 3rd Street in Lake Elsinore, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), supported by Cadre Environmental (Cadre 2025), mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation includes potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species, but it also applies to wildlife populations and plant 2 and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which specialstatus species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.
All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).
What follows is a summary of three site visits to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The surveys were also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special-status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity.
Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for
1.65 hours of daytime survey from 15:01 to 16:40 hours, and for 2 hours of evening survey from 16:40 to 18:40 hours on 28 November 2025, and for 2.67 hours of daytime survey from 06:49 to 09:29 hours on 2 December 2025. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars.
At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 20-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. 3 On 28 November 2025, conditions were sunny with 4 MPH west wind and temperatures of 74-67° F during the daytime survey, and clear with no wind and temperatures of 67- 60° F during the evening survey. On 2 December 2025, conditions were sunny with no wind and temperatures of 42-55° F. The site is primarily annual grassland with multiple scattered mature trees (Photos 1 and 2).
Noriko saw red-tailed hawk and common raven (Photos 3-5), American kestrel and Nuttall’s woodpecker (Photos 6 and 7), mourning dove (Photo 8), northern mockingbird and Cassin’s kingbird (Photos 9 and 10), black phoebe and Say’s phoebe (Photos 11 and 12), California towhee and house finch (Photos 13 and 14), mountain bluebird and California ground squirrel (Photos 15 and 16), canyon bat (Photo 17), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 33 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 8 species with special status, one of which is covered by the Western Riverside County Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (Table 1).
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 28 November and 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
4 Photo 3. Red-tailed hawks on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 4 and 5. Common raven with a bone (left), and red-tailed hawk with the same bone shortly after (right) on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
5 Photos 6 and 7. American kestrel (left), and Nuttall’s woodpecker (right) on the project site, 2 December and 28 November 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 8. Mourning doves on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
6 Photos 9 and 10. Northern mockingbird (left), and Cassin’s kingbird (right) on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 11 and 12. Black phoebe (left), and Say’s phoebe (right) on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
7 Photos 13 and 14. California towhee (left), and house finch (right) on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 15 and 16. Mountain bluebird (left), and California ground squirrel (right) on the project site, 2 December 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 8 Photo 17. Sonogram of canyon bat detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson M500, 28 November 2025.
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 1.65 hours of daytime and 2 hours of evening survey on 28 November 2025, and during 2.67 hours of daytime survey on 2 December 2025.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Many, perched in trees
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Foraged, territorial
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Territorial
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Flew over
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Flew over
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Perched in trees, socialized Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Perched in trees, called American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Perched, foraged
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Foraged
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax Many
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia WL, MSHCP Flew over, called
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Flock foraged
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
9 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Flock foraged
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Just off site California towhee Melozone crissalis Foraged
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M
Mexican free-tailed bat
or hoary bat
Tadarida brasiliensis or
Lasiurus cinereus
WBWG:L or
M
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat
California ground
squirrel
Otospermophilus
beecheyi
2 observed, likely more on
site
Coyote Canis latrans Scat
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 33 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat as the result of the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces.
Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar developments on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997), and this use is inferred by observations of the presence of a species (Smallwood 2002).
10 However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 2 December predicts 37 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 10 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). The rate of species detections in the morning survey exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in the region. Despite the disturbed nature of the site, it supports a high species richness.
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s
visual-scan
surveys on 28
November and 2
December 2025.
Note the
confidence
interval applies
only to the
morning survey
(red line).
YAM 0.99
YPM 0.99
r
2 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Minutes into survey
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 11
Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 28 November and 2 December 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two surveys.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 15.9 species over my first 4.32 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.32 hours to match the 4.32 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 27.9% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 31 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her
4.32 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 27.9% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 31
0.279 ⁄ = 111
species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 111 12 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 21 special-status species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.
Because my prediction of 111 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 21 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. In fact, in only two hours of survey and the least active time of year for bats, Noriko detected one and possibly two special-status species of bats.
Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her two surveys to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively speciesrich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
13 first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these steps were taken, though not with sufficient rigor, and not interpreted in furtherance of an accurate characterization of the wildlife community.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, however, more surveys were needed, as were more appropriate interpretations of the survey findings.
According to Cadre (2025:5), “General wildlife surveys were not conducted during the general biological habitat assessment,” which was on 10 June 2022. No explanation is given for why the 10 June survey did not include wildlife detections. No start time or duration is reported for this survey, which was reportedly to direct special attention “toward sensitive resources or those habitats potentially supporting sensitive flora or fauna that would be essential to efficiently implementing the terms and conditions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP,” serve as a burrowing owl habitat assessment, and to map vegetation. Some wildlife species are considered sensitive, so again it is strange that Cadre would not record wildlife detected during this survey.
Considering that Cadre did not record species detected during its 10 June 2022 reconnaissance survey, the 13 species of wildlife reportedly detected by Cadre (2025) were presumably detected during the four burrowing owl detection surveys on 11, 13, 17 and 19 June 2022. The word “inventory” is used in section headings, which implies that surveys were intended to inventory the wildlife and plant communities on the site.
Indeed, the IS/MND (p. 36)regards the survey results as representative of all the species to be found by these surveys: “…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.” In fact, the results of Cadre’s surveys could not have qualified as inventories of wildlife and plant communities, and therefore the IS/MND’s interpretation of Cadre’s findings are unsupported and misleading. A simple refutation of the notion that Cadre’s brief survey effort did not produce a species inventory is to be found in Noriko’s survey findings, in which she found 2.5 times the number of species of vertebrate wildlife than were found by Cadre, or 22 species of vertebrate wildlife that Cadre did not detect.
Beyond this simple refutation, I predict 111 diurnally active species of vertebrate wildlife occur on the project site over the period of a year or longer. I estimate a minimum of another 40 species of wildlife occur on the site, which are nocturnal, periodic in their occurrences, fossorial, or highly cryptic, so the total number of species of vertebrate 14 wildlife is more like 151 species. Cadre (2025) detected about 8% of the species of wildlife that use the project site, so its species findings are not inventories nor even close to inventories.
Furthermore, sensitive species tend to be more difficult to detect than species lacking special status. It is for this reason that protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for many special-status species. It is well established that one or a few reconnaissance surveys is insufficient for detecting most special-status species. It is also well established that a focused survey for one special-status species such as burrowing owl is insufficient for detecting other special-status species. Both Cadre (2025) and the IS/MND fail to put Cadre’s survey findings into context, such as the contest of the detection probabilities associated with each special-status species. As an example of the need to consider the detection probabilities of special-status species, consider the California Fully Protected white-tailed kite, which was not detected on the project site by either Cadre or Noriko. Is this failure to detect white-tailed kite sufficient evidence that white-tailed kites are absent from the project site? Absolutely not. The likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite at a given site is a function of both the proximity of documented occurrence records and survey effort, based on hundreds of reconnaissance surveys conducted by me and Noriko (Figure 3). Knowing that occurrence records exist of white-tailed kites within 1.5 miles of the project site, Noriko’s survey effort afforded her a 12% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite, whereas Cadre’s survey effort afforded it a 20% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite, but only if Cadre had been conducting reconnaissance surveys instead of focused burrowing owl surveys. Many more hours of reconnaissance surveys at the site would be needed to achieve a >50% chance of detecting white-tailed kite. As it stands, the basis does not exist for determining that white-tailed kites are absent from the project site. The same lack of survey basis applies to most special-status species that could conceivably occur on the project site.
The flaw noted above repeats on p. 36 of the IS/MND where it states, “Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) … was not observed on or adjacent to the site during biological surveys...” The fact that Stephens’ kangaroo rat was not observed means nothing without considering its detection probability during surveys focused on detecting burrowing owls. The most effective way to detect Stephens’ kangaroo rat is by live-trapping, but certainly not by walking transects for burrowing owls.
Regarding the burrowing owl, the IS/MND (p. 36) reports that focused surveys were conducted, and based on the findings of these surveys, the burrowing owl “is currently presumed absent from the study area.” However, the surveys were again insufficient for the purpose of determining that burrowing owls are absent from the project site. The surveys mostly met the minimum standards of the County of Riverside’s (2006) survey guidelines, but it is well established that these guidelines are inadequate for supporting an absence determination. The CDFW (2012) survey guidelines are deemed adequate, and my own experience studying burrowing owls gives me confidence that the CDFW (2012) guidelines are indeed adequate for supporting an absence determination based on negative findings. Completing all four surveys within the space of one week, as was done by Cadre (2025), fails to meet the most essential of CDFW’s (2012) survey 15 guidelines. Whereas Cadre and the City of Lake Elsinore can accurately state that Cadre’s surveys met the minimum standards of County of Riverside (2006), they cannot defend an absence determination based on these surveys, at least not scientifically.
Figure 3. Probability
of detection of whitetailed kite as a function
of survey effort and
proximity of occurrence
records to a project site.
Moreover, it has been nearly four years since Cadre’s surveys, so the survey results are outdated. If burrowing owls were truly absent in 2022, they might be present by now.
Cadre’s (2025) photos of the project site show that it had been recently disked. In fact, Google Earth Historical Imagery shows that the project site had been disked repeatedly from 2009 through at least Auguust 2021, and with Cadre’s photos the evidence shows it was disked through the time of Cadre’s surveys in June 2022. In April 2023 and thereafter, however, Google Earth’s Historical Imagery shows that the project site has been covered in grassland, which is burrowing owl habitat. The project site support has supported annual grassland and California ground squirrels over the last several years, and therefore needs to be surveyed for burrowing owls.
Another flaw of the IS/MND is its neglect of the comparative method, which is essential to environmental review. For example, Cadre (2025) identifies the species it detected in paragraph form, totaling 13 species of vertebrate wildlife, and the IS/MND treats these species as the definitive wildlife community, which it is not. No attempt is made to compare Cadre’s findings on the project site to findings made elsewhere, either by Cadre Log10 Survey hours
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0 0 Probability of detection
1.5 and 40 miles
Within 1.5 miles
On site or adjacent
Nearest eBird records
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus
California Fully Protected
0.4 1 4 10 Hours 158
P = 0.12 for Noriko’s
surveys
P = 0.2 for Cadre’s
surveys
16 or anyone else. There is no evidence presented that Cadre’s findings are typical or atypical, or that they include fewer or more species detections than usual. No evidence is presented that relative to the survey effort, the findings were above or below the average, and no evidence is presented that the survey effort itself was above or below average.
In the course of my experience as a preparer of expert testimony, I have encountered a few other survey efforts by Cadre, though I am sure Cadre has completed many more surveys than the few I have encountered. Nonetheless, I have records of six of Cadre’s survey efforts at four project sites inclusive of the Dexter Village site. The species that Cadre detected were not reported for two of the survey efforts, and Cadre detected six species as a result of one survey effort, and 13 species as results of three other survey efforts inclusive of Dexter Village. Overall, Cadre detected the same species among its reported survey efforts, totaling 19 species altogether. Noriko happened to have surveyed these same project sites, but always from the site’s perimeters. Despite her constraint to the sidelines, Noriko tallied 61 vertebrate wildlife species detected among these project sites, or 3.2 times the number of species detected by Cadre. She also tallied 16 special-status species among these sites, or 5.3 times the number of special-status species detected by Cadre. Among the special-status species detected by Noriko but not by Cadre were golden eagle, peregrine falcon, merlin, northern harrier burrowing owl, white-faced ibis, and silver-haired bat, and others. The only special-status species detected by Cadre at these same project sites were red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and at the Dexter Village site Allen’s hummingbird (Cadre did not report that Allen’s hummingbird is a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern). A simple application of the comparative method reveals that Cadre detects nearly the same small suite of wildlife species from survey to survey, and it detects many fewer special-status species that does Noriko.
The comparative method can and should be extended to account for differences in survey outcomes among sites proposed for projects as compared to sites that are more pristine and sites that have already been developed. After all, this type of comparison is essential to environmental review; it is essential to disclose not only an accurate representation of the environmental setting but also the project’s potential impacts. But I add to the comparison survey outcomes from more pristine sites, and I do this because in my experience, sites proposed for projects are often degraded by disking or mowing or dumping. Considering these three types of environments, Figure 4 puts into context Noriko’s survey findings at the Dexter Village project site. Like many other project sites, the Dexter Village site had been disked many times, and so its species richness is intermediate between more pristine reference sites and fully developed sites.
Unrepresented in Figure 4 is the disproportionate loss of special-status species and the shift to synanthropic species that would occur with development (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023).
17 Figure 4. Noriko Smallwood’s survey findings at the Dexter Village project site relative to our survey findings at other project sites (red), at developed sites (black), and at more pristine sites that is labeled here as reference sites (green). Noriko’s findings are typical of what we find at project sites, falling within the 95% confidence interval based on the results of hundreds of surveys.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.
In its reporting of how it established the pool of special-status species for assessment of occurrence likelihoods, Cadre (2025:4) claims “the sources reviewed provided an excellent baseline from which to assess the biological resources potentially occurring in the area.” However, a positive-sightings baseline is far from excellent, especially after omitting iNaturalist and eBird from the review. Even had iNaturalist and 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Early morning surveys for vertebrate wildlife
Reference sites
Proposed project sites
Developed sites
Mean (95% CI) cumulative species detected
Noriko’s morning survey tally (27)
of vertebrate wildlife species
at the Dexter Village site
18 eBird been used for this purpose, it would have been inappropriate to rule out species based on absences of occurrence records. Positive-sighting databases are useful for confirming presence, but not for confirming absence of species because such databases are not designed for this purpose. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site.
There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Cadre (2025a) and hence the IS/MND misuse the CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.
And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.
In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 152 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 151 species, 9 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 67 (44%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 15 (10%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 52 (34%) between 4 to 30 miles (In region). Almost two thirds (60%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least nine special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.
Cadre (2023) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 33 (22%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 118 (78%) of the special-status species in Table 2 were screened out of the analysis in the first step of the desktop review. Of the 33 species assessed, Cadre (2023) determines all but three of them have “No potential” 19 or “low potential” to occur on the project site. However, eight species given occurrence likelihoods of “Low” or “No potential” have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, and another three species have been recorded within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Of the 118 species omitted from further analysis by Cadre (2025), 8 have been documented on the project site, and 58 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site. In summary, Cadre’s determinations of occurrence likelihoods comport only poorly with survey results and with available occurrence records in the region.
Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
Cadre (2025) reports on field surveys and desktop review having been performed, but the field survey results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere, and the desktop review starts with an inappropriately small pool of specialstatus species after misusing the CNDDB and having not used eBird and iNaturalist.
Cadre (2025) often resorts to speculation in its analyses of occurrence likelihoods, having not completed surveys appropriate to bats and fossorial small mammals or even to species more detectable in daytime reconnaissance surveys, and having committed too little survey effort overall. Speculated habitat assessments are highly uncertain, which is inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described.
Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.
At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community of the projects site as a suitable baseline from which to predict project impacts and to formulate an appropriate mitigation strategy.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Predictions are necessary because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for the formulations of avoidance and minimization mitigation strategies that are prioritized by the CEQA. Impact predictions are necessary as part of the environmental review. The accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 5).
20 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.
Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT No potential In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE No potential In region Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Yes No potential In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE No potential Nearby Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Yes No potential In region Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC Yes No potential In region Granite spiny lizard Sceloporus orcutti Yes Very close
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes Low potential In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes No potential In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes Low potential In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC In region San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC Yes In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes No potential Very close Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Very close
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
21 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE Yes In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Yes Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close/On site
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Yes No potential In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Very close
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Very close
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Very close Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Very close
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Nearby
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Yes Very close 22 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Yes
Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Yes Low potential Very close Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes Very close Great blue heron Ardea herodias Yes Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Yes On site/On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Yes Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Yes Low potential Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
Yes Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Yes Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Yes Low potential Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
Yes Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Yes Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site/On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Yes Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
23 Common name Species name Status
1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE,
SSC2, BOP
Yes Potential Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens Yes Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close/On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site/On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Yes Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Yes Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes No potential In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Yes No potential Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Yes Moderate potential
Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Yes Moderate potential
Very close/On
site
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes On site
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Yes Very close
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
24 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes No potential Very close California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Yes Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Yes No potential Very close Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Yes Very close
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Yes Low potential Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Yes Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yes Very close
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yes Nearby
Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Yes Very close Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla Yes Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In region
25 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M Nearby/On site Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In
region/Possible
on site
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H No potential In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In region
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region/Possible
on site
Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M No potential In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H No potential In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Yes Low potential In region Bobcat Lynx rufus Yes No potential Nearby
Coyote Canis latrans Yes Very close
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Yes In region
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Yes No potential In region Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In range
Dulzura kangaroo rat Dipodomys simulans Yes In region
26 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Cadre
(2023)
Occurrences in
data base
records, Site
visits
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FT, CT Yes No potential In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Yes No potential In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Yes No potential Nearby Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC No potential In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC No potential In region 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors). 27 Figure 5. General flow of information from the gathering stage through the characterization of the existing environment to predictions of impacts and their significance.
Impact predictions can derive from speculation or from experience (Figure 6).
Speculation is repeatedly discouraged in the CEQA Guidelines, because speculation is an inconclusive guess or ponderance on a phenomenon without the benefit of data.
Prediction accuracy improves with experience, though the experience that can be brought to bear on impact predictions ranges from anecdotes to careful use of scientific inference. Inference is a conclusion derived logically from data that are available about a phenomenon. Any type of experience is usually better than relying on speculation, but careful scientific inference, especially inference drawn from experiments, has proven most effective. An analogy would be predicting the boiling temperature of water at a certain place with a known atmospheric pressure after having measured it hundreds of times at other places under various atmospheric pressures. The experience of measuring the boiling temperature at all these other places would certainly result in a more accurate prediction of the boiling point as compared to a speculative prediction. We know that use of inference in this example is certainly more predictive, and not potentially more predictive, because we have a long successful history with the application of this type of experimentation to draw predictive inference.
The many projects that have undergone CEQA review provide a comparative basis for drawing inferences needed to predict the impacts of the next proposed project (Figure 6). Reconnaissance survey results that are not compared to survey results from other project sites miss the opportunity to interpret the results for the purpose of predicting impacts. The same is true of CDNNB occurrence records. For example, it would be helpful to know how often a species lacking CNDDB occurrence records on a site is nevertheless detected onsite by reconnaissance survey(s). It would be helpful to know how often the impact predictions of other projects are proven accurate, and how often Assess species occurrence likelihoods
1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover
2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment
3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes
5. Predict impacts
6. Formulate mitigation strategy
7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community
4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement
28 the required mitigation measures are proven effective. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference over speculation and the blind confidence of simply repeating impact conclusions of unknown accuracy and mitigation strategies of unknown efficacy.
Figure 6. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.
In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed adequately in the IS/MND, and some of which are not analyzed at all.
UNQUALIFIED IMPACT PREDICTIONS
The IS/MND reports impact predictions that fail to follow logically from a sound premise. For example, at p. 36, the IS/MND reports, “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.” And on p. 38, “The site is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, noncontiguous 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.” However, whether the project is located within or adjacent to a Criteria Cell or an existing core or anything related to the MSHCP is irrelevant to the CEQA Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions
29 Guidelines’ Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form question IV a. whether the project would have a substantial effect on any special-status species that are identified in a regional plan (e.g., the MSHCP). The standard CEQA question does not specify that an impact is substantial only if it occurs within or adjacent to an MSHCP Criteria Cell or existing core or constrained linkage, etc. Most of the special-status species at risk of harm by the project are not even covered by the MSHCP.
REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 35 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko and Cadre’s biologist(s) observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s surveys were only reconnaissance surveys conducted outside the breeding season, and therefore unsuitable for detecting all bird nests on the site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.
Noriko has completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in the local area.
Noriko estimated 5.56 nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in Murrieta, and 12.73 nests/acre on a 0.55-acre oak woodland site in Murietta. Assuming the average of the above two estimates most accurately represents the nest density at the Dexter Village site, then the predicted density is 9.15 nests/acre.
This density applied to the 23.44 acres of the project site would predict 214 nest sites.
Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 297 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 861 fledglings/year at the project site.
The loss of 214 nest sites and 297 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.
The project would prevent the production of 861 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 968 birds per year denied to California.
The loss of 968 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 968 birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact. 30 INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. According to Cadre (2025:11): “The Project Site does not represent a regional wildlife movement corridor.” Additionally, “The Project Site is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, noncontiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area.” The IS/MND adopts this claim on p. 38, where it explains “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. ... Therefore, the project will not significantly impact wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” The first problem with these conclusions is that they are inconsistent with other statements in the IS/MND, such as that in the next paragraph on p. 36 where the IS/MND states “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 ...” The project site is situated within a valley feature that channels migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway, and to boot it is located near an important migratory destination in Lake Elsinore.
The IS/MND focuses too much on the red-herring question of whether the project site occurs within a movement corridor, even though it obviously does. Nevertheless, the question is a red herring because the CEQA standard applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors. Some of the birds and all the bats observed by Noriko were in flight, so the site is obviously of some importance to wildlife movement. Importantly, Cadre’s and the IS/MND’s only basis for their conclusions is speculation, as no study design or specific field method or program of observation was implemented on the project site to characterize wildlife movement across the project site or beyond. Cadre (2025) did not even identify the question of whether the project site is important to wildlife movement as a survey objective. A simple program of observation could have been to perform timed surveys on observation stations located at intervals across the site, and to have observers plot wildlife flight paths on handheld maps. Another would be to use a thermal-imaging camera to track and record animal movements at night, including terrestrial mammals, birds and bats. But Cadre (2025) reports nothing like this, and its analysis of wildlife movement and whether the project would interfere with it is therefore limited to speculation. Speculation is an unsound basis for making important determinations.
The IS/MND’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is incomplete, unsound, and misleading. Increasingly surrounded by industrial and residential lan uses, the project site is also increasingly important to wildlife movement in the region. The options for stopover and staging opportunities are diminishing as habitat is increasingly fragmented in the region. 31 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 18―21), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).
Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
Photo 18. A desert cottontail runs across the road just in Murietta, California. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. 32 Photo 19. A great-tailed grackle crosses a road in the Imperial Valley.
Photos 20 and 21. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and California kingsnake killed by a vehicle on a rural road in El Dorado County in 2024.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to 33 find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife Information reported in Table 17 of the IS/MND leads me to predict 4,295,513 annual VMT would be generated by the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 1,827 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is more vulnerable to collision mortality. To address this argument, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses.
I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2.7 km (1.713 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals 34 such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10”- to 16”-long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground squirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic.
The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 7. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1.713 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9% of the rate measured at Vasco Road, or an estimated 5,748 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the VMT that is predicted for the project would predict 747 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.
A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 747 to 1,827 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/year due to project-generated traffic.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.
35 Figure 7.
Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.
WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).
Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts 1,660 new residents, but assuming the population is distributed proportional to square feet of floor space, then 36.7% (609) of new residents would dwell in apartments, and 1,051 would dwell in townhomes and single-family homes. This is important because Ma and McLeod (2023) found that only 15% of apartment owners allow their cats to roam free.
The above rates of cat ownership applied to numbers of new residents who would allow their cats to roam free would predict 503 new free-ranging cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 61,366 vertebrate wildlife per year. 36 House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (The original link is no longer active, but the quote came from the program described at:
https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter).
Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.
The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and our site visits indicate there are 101 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). All the birds represented in Table 2 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.
We confirmed birds of 31 species on the project site, many of them flying across the site.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust 37 the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found in searches, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the 38 fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction: By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102).
This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.
With the estimated average bird collision mortality above, all I need are estimates of window extents in the project. Based on the square-footages of buildings composing each type of proposed development in the project, I compared the average m2 of exterior glass windows relative to the sf of floor space that I have maintained in a database of other development projects for which I have been able to measure window extents in 39 renderings provided in the environmental review documents (Table 3). The extents of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 757 (95% CI: 444–1,051) bird collision fatalities per year.
Table 3. Summary of the amount of exterior glass that is predictable for each type of development, and the annual bird-window collision mortality that is predicted from each.
Development
Square feet Extent of exterior glass Bird collision fatalities/year m2/sf a m2
Townhomes 114,744 0.03491 4006 293 (95% CI: 174–412)
Single-family homes 234,941 0.01591 3738 273 (95% CI: 162–384) Apartments b 202,875 0.01158 2349 172 (95% CI: 102–241) Recreation building 5,577 0.02331 130 410 (95% CI: 6–13) Total 558,137 10,223 757 (95% CI: 444–1,051)
a Based on mean ratios of window extents relative to floor space in renderings of buildings in environmental review documents I have reviewed (K. S. Smallwood unpublished data); the exception is the recreation building, for which I applied the mean from office buildings. b I assumed 1,014 sf for 2-bedroom apartments.
The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts that were not addressed in the IS/MND. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis is flawed. The first flaw is the claim that mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce project-specific impacts on wildlife to less than significant levels, because they would not (see comments under Flawed Mitigation Strategy, below). This flaw is followed by the implied notion that reducing project-specific impacts also reduces project contributions to cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. This notion is inconsistent with the CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects, and if it was true, then there would be no purpose to CEQA’s requirement for cumulative impacts analysis.
The IS/MND (p. 91) further claims that “potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant through compliance with applicable permits (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, MBTA, federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act)…,” but it provides no explanation of how compliance with these permits would reduce the impacts. The IS/MND (p. 91) extends the same claim to other projects that might have contributed to cumulative impacts:
“Other development in the project area also would be required to comply with 40 applicable environmental laws and mitigation requirements.” However, all previous projects that underwent CEQA review and which were subsequently developed presumably also obtained all their required permits, yet wildlife continued to decline (e.g., Rosenberg et al. 2019, Miller 2024). If the IS’MND’s argument was sound, then there would be no purpose to the CEQA’s requirement for cumulative impacts analysis.
Noriko and I performed an experiment to measure the effects – including cumulative effects – of projects that had to comply with permits, existing regulations, and required project mitigation. We revisited the project sites we had earlier surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts on wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We reported that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (- 75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), nonnative birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures, permits, policies, regulations, and habitat plans. The IS/MND’s claim that project compliance with permits and required mitigation measures would avoid cumulative impacts on wildlife has been soundly refuted.
Another flaw, which is related to that commented on above, is the claim that the MSHCP would avoid cumulative impacts because it was formulated to anticipate such impacts.
According to Cadre (2025:43), “…the MSHCP was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the City of Lake Elsinore.” And according to the IS/MND (p. 91) “The Western Riverside County MSHCP, which has been adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the wildlife agencies, is largely designed to address potential cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from development in the western portion of the County through assembly of a comprehensive reserve system. Based on the project-specific mitigation measures that would be implemented and on the existence of an approved region-wide conservation plan, the proposed project would not incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative biological resources impact.” But again, the IS/MND does not explain how the MSHCP would avoid cumulative impacts, other than to vaguely suggest that the MSHBP’s reserve system would somehow accomplish this. The IS/MND could have, but did not, cite evidence of the MSHCP’s progress toward meeting its conservation goals and objectives.
41 The evidence indicates the MSHCP is failing to meet its conservation goals and objectives while at the same time frontloading development. The biological goal of the MSHCP is to “…conserve covered species and their habitats…” by acquiring 153,000 acres of additional reserve land and meeting species-specific numerical thresholds of abundance. According to the 2023 annual report, additional acreage acquired through 2023 totaled 68,100 acres, or 44.5% of the goal. Only 47,056 acres were managed under Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), or 31% of the goal. Over the same time period, habitat losses totaled 101,214 acres, of which 19,104 acres (19%) were inside Criteria Cells. The MSHCP is failing to meet goals and objectives.
The MSHCP also fails to achieve its conservation goals for focal species such as the burrowing owl. The 2023 Annual Report of the MSHCP (p. 8-8) states, “The species objectives for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) require the conservation of five Core Areas, plus interconnecting linkages, containing a breeding population of 120 Burrowing Owls with no fewer than five pairs in any one Core Area.” (https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/annual-reports/) In 2022, there were 7 pairs in one Core Area, 4 of which produced a total 4 fledglings (1 fledgling per successful nest attempt). In 2023, this Core Area was down to 5 pairs, of which one succeeded in producing a single fledgling. Another Core area contained 3 pairs in 2022, and 3 fledglings were recorded by one of these pairs. In 2023, this Core Area was down to 2 pairs, one of which produced 5 fledglings. The evidence shows a dismal failure of the MSHCP to conserve burrowing owls, as the documented breeding population was 20 (16.67% of the target) in 2022 and 14 (11.67% of the target) in 2023, and only one (20%) Core Area contained at least five pairs in either year. The MSHCP has failed to conserve burrowing owls at target levels, and its performance is declining.
Nor was the mitigation of the MSHCP formulated in response to consideration of all the impacts I outlined in my comments. The strategy of the MSHCP is to preserve patches of habitat as mitigation for the habitat that will be lost to development. This strategy fails to consider the chronic impacts of the ecological sinks created by the projects’ habitat destruction. One such ecological sink includes road traffic, which chronically takes members of species targeted for protection in the preserved habitat. The MSHCP fails to consider that wildlife are mobile, and that wildlife cannot persist without expressing their mobility. To migrate, disperse, forage, and patrol home ranges, wildlife must cross roads, and those that are volant must fly through the airspaces that best conserve energy and avoid predators. Furthermore, the consigning of wildlife to the preserved habitat patches per the MSHCP’s strategy exposes those “preserved” wildlife to catastrophic losses from wildfire. Having worked with endangered species in small, isolated habitat patches, I have witnessed what happens when fire burns all the vegetation remaining in the patch, or when drought destroys all the forage; the species is extinguished. The MSHCP cannot alone mitigate the impacts of this or all the other projects participating with it.
The MSHCP is not achieving its conservation goals for covered species of wildlife, but as I noted earlier, it is especially deficient in its conservation of species that lack coverage.
Regarding these latter species, Cadre (2025:43) reports that “Non-covered sensitive floral or faunal species were not detected or expected to occur within or adjacent to the 42 project and therefore the development of the Project Site would not result or contribute to a cumulative impact to non-covered species.” However, as I commented earlier, the surveys completed by Cadre were not suitable for determining that any of the species not detected by Cadre are truly absent from the site. Cadre’s conclusion of no cumulative impact on non-covered species is scientifically indefensible and readily refuted. Of the special-status species in Table 2, 62% (94) of them lack coverage under the MSHCP. Six of these species have been documented on the project site, and 35 more have been detected within 1.5 miles of the site, and another 9 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Fifty special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been documented within a 4-mile radius of the project site, and none of these have been considered in the formulation of the MSHCP.
The final flaw of the IS/MND’s analysis is that it does not extend impact predictions to the many projects it lists as potential contributors to cumulative impacts. Following my comments, for example, it could extend my predicted loss of 968 birds per year due to habitat loss by multiplying the number of birds lost per acre against the cumulative acreage of habitat loss. It could also extend my predicted 747–1,827 wild animals per year killed by project-generated traffic to the projected annual VMT among the projects identified as potential contributors to cumulative impacts. It could extend my predicted 757 (95% CI: 444-1,051) birds per year killed by the project’s glass windows to the extents of glass in projects identified as potential contributors to cumulative impacts. It could extend my predicted 61,366 vertebrate wildlife per year killed by the project’s house cats to the predicted number of house cats among the projects identified as potential contributors to cumulative impacts. The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete.
FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. Are the occurrences of resident species? Migratory? For special-status species, detection surveys should have been performed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of absence. Surveys should have been performed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7:
Predict impacts (Figure 5). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.
MSHCP Participation. The project is subject to MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees…
43 The fees need to be paid, but it needs to be understood that the MSHCP is failing to meet its conservation goals and objectives, and covered species continue to decline and are not being conserved to identified success thresholds. It also needs to be understood that most special-status species potentially adversely affected by this project are not covered by the incidental take permit of the MSHCP.
MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction 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. ... 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.
The strategy is premature because breeding-season surveys for burrowing owls have not been completed to the standards of CDFW (2012), and no surveys have been completed at all since 2022. To be consistent with the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, as the IS/MND claims it would be, the preconstruction survey needs to follow breeding season-surveys, and the breeding-season surveys need to be completed prior to the public circulation of the CEQA review document. The CDFW (2012) guidelines recommends his sequence of surveys because the breeding-season surveys are intended to disclose potential impacts, and to inform survey personnel of where they are most likely to find burrowing owls in the preconstruction survey.
As for relocation, the burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, so it is unlikely that the CDFW would approve relocation.
Moreover, the applicant needs to consult with the CDFW before the public circulation of the CEQA review document because the CDFW needs to be consulted prior to the breeding-season surveys.
MM BIO-2: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds. … construction activities shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31).
This mitigation language lacks commitment by allowing for construction activities to begin during the nesting season, and as such it is empty and unenforceable.
MM BIO-2: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds. … 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 44 within 300 feet of the project footprint. If no nests are found, no further action is required. If active nests are found, …. An appropriate avoidance buffer … shall be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist. …. 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. ...
Should the project go forward, I concur with this measure, but the 3-day window for completing the preconstruction survey would be too brief for detecting all avian nest sites. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species.
To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would require a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in three days.
I predict the project site supports 214 nest sites in the average year, and this number does not include those that would need to be located within the defined buffer areas beyond the project site’s boundary. Even assuming all these nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey.
After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.
Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
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.
The fee needs to be paid, but as I did with the MSHCP, the City of Lake Elsinore needs to assess whether the Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP is meeting its stated conservation goals and objectives.
45 NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Compensatory Habitat Protection: The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds. The loss of this capacity would need to be offset by compensatory mitigation as near to the site as possible. I recommend a 5:1 mitigation ratio to achieve a no net loss standard, as a 1:1 ratio would simply ensure a 50% loss of habitat between the project site and mitigation site.
The loss of burrowing owl foraging opportunities would need to be mitigated, as well.
The applicant needs to consult with the CDFW to learn what mitigation ratio would be acceptable for loss of burrowing owl habitat on the project site, and whether and where habitat is available to be protected nearby.
Biological Monitoring during Construction: A qualified biologist needs to be retained to monitor construction activities to ensure maximum safety to wildlife, to transport injured wildlife to rehabilitation facilities, and to maintain publicly available reporting of all wildlife incidents and the fates of all wildlife involved.
House Cat Predation: As I commented earlier, an obvious action to minimize house cat impacts on wildlife would be to require apartment residents to keep their cats indoors. A mechanism for enforcement of this policy would also be needed. I also suggest payment of a mitigation fee to the Humane Society or another suitable organization to cover its costs of assisting the capture and neutering of free-ranging house cats.
Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 46 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).
Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction and by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site during project operations.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).
Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native 47 plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI
10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00557-080203 Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 48 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
Cadre (Cadre Environmental). 2025. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 23.05-Acre Dexter Village Project Site, City of Lake Elsinore, Western Riverside County, California. Report to unstated recipient.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.
Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
County of Riverside. 2006. Burrowing owl survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Environmental Programs Department. https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_ survey_instructions.pdf.
Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.
W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
49 Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M. A. Gregg, J. L. Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010. Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for Burrowing Owls. Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington. Pdf available from URLs: www.globalowlproject.com, or www.wildlife-research.org
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
50 Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species 51 Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 52 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.
Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N. L. and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D.
Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021.
Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
762 professional reports, including:
90 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
January 12, 2025
Brian Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
Subject: Comments on the Dexter Village Project (SCH No. 2025110457) Dear Mr. Flynn,
We have reviewed the November 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Dexter Village (“Project”) located in the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 84 townhomes, 137 single-family homes, and 230 apartments on the 23.05-acre site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the Project may have on the environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report (“AQ Report”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we identified several model inputs related to Project construction and operation that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. The impact of these changes is quantified in the section of this letter titled “Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact." An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that provides a more detailed evaluation of the impact that the Project may have on local and regional air quality.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Land Use Size
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Dexter Village Project - Phase 1 Custom Report” and “Dexter Village Project - Phase 2 Custom Report” models include 116,940-SF of 2 “Condo/Townhouse” space, 236,233-SF of “Single Family Housing” space, and 202,590-SF of “Apartments Mid Rise” space, respectively (see screenshots below) (Appendix A, pp. 89, 90, 163, 164).
While the IS/MND proposes to develop 84 townhomes, 137 single-family homes, and 230 apartments, the IS/MND does not specify the square footage of the proposed building area. The IS/MND states:
“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”
and
“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” (p. 8).
The IS/MND continues, stating:
“The proposed apartments would consist of a mixture of one- to three-bedroom units (110 onebedroom 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” (p. 9).
3 As indicated above, the IS/MND only includes the range in square footage for the proposed residential space. The residential square footage included in the model is thus unsupported and may be underestimated.
This potential underestimation presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that affect the model’s calculations. The square footage of each land use is used for certain calculations such as architectural coatings and energy use.1 By potentially underestimating the size of the proposed housing, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Dexter Village Project - Phase 1 Custom Report” and “Dexter Village Project - Phase 2 Custom Report” models include changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see screenshot below) (Appendix A, pp. 155, 219).
As a result of these changes, the models include the following construction schedules (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 142, 208, 209):
1 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 30. 4 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 The justification provided for these changes is:
“Project would not include demolition. Construction would occur over two phases, with the apartment units beginning in January 2027 and occurring for 14 months. Mass site preparation and grading would occur during Phase 1. This analysis assumes that only building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases would occur during Phase 2” (Appendix A, pp. 155, 219).
Regarding the construction schedule, the IS/MND states:
“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” (p. 11).
Additionally, the AQ Report provides the following construction schedule, citing “Compiled by LSA (May 2025)” as the source (see screenshot below) (Appendix A, p. 50, Table J):
Although the IS/MND justifies the total construction duration of 18 months for Phase 1 and 14 months for Phase 2, the provided table and source do not adequately substantiate the individual construction 2 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 13, 14. 5 phase lengths. LSA is the environmental consulting firm that prepared the AQ Report and associated air modeling in CalEEMod. The construction schedule—and any changes in the CalEEMod model—should be provided the Project Applicant. The AQ Report, which reflects what is in the air modeling, or the CalEEMod output files themselves are insufficient justification. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 3
Without a verifiable source, construction emissions may be unevenly distributed, with some phases extended over longer periods. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).4 By modifying the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are more days to complete the construction activities required by the certain phases. The model therefore assumes fewer activities would be required per day for those phases and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day.
Until the construction phases are verified, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with certain construction activities. The models should have instead proportionately altered all phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 18 and 14 months, respectively.
Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact To more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions, we prepared Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction CalEEMod models, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND.
For each model, we proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed 18-month and 14-month construction durations, respectively. All other inputs remain consistent with the IS/MND’s model.
3 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 10. 4 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 34, Table 3. 6 Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related reactive organic gases (“ROG”) emissions exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) daily threshold of 75 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table below).
SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates
Construction Phase 1
ROG (lbs/day)
IS/MND 33.7
SWAPE 111
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
According to our analysis, the Phase 1 construction-related ROG emissions are estimated to be approximately 111 lbs/day, exceeding the SCAQMD daily threshold. This finding indicates a potentially significant air quality impact that the IS/MND did not identify or address. In our opinion, an EIR should be conducted to provide a more accurate evaluation of the potential air quality impact from the Project on the environment and mitigate significant impacts accordingly.
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated Construction of the Project will generate diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen, through the use of off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks. The IS/MND claims a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction health risk assessment (“HRA”). The IS/MND is thus inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Under CEQA, agencies must make a “reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 5 To comply with this requirement, a construction-phase HRA should have been performed to assess the potential health risks to nearby, existing sensitive receptors from DPM emissions generated during construction. The resulting cancer risk estimate should then be compared against the SCAQMD established threshold of 10 in one million.6 Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We conducted a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model which uses a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed.7 We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction-related health risk impact to 5 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s219783a.html 6 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 7 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 7 residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files.8 Consistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.9 The “Dexter Village Project - Phase 1 Custom Report” and “Dexter Village Project - Phase 2 Custom Report” models indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 481 pounds of DPM over the total 788-day construction period.10 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over construction of the Project, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 481 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
788 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.0032 grams per second (“g/s”).
Construction and operation were simulated as a 23.05-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 432- by 216-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Lake Elsinore was obtained from U.S. 2024 Census data.11 The AESCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations for the Project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.12 The IS/MND states that the closest known sensitive receptors include an existing single-family residence that is as close as 81 feet, or 25 meters, to the Project site (p. 32).
However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrate that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 225 meters downwind of the Project site.13 Thus, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for construction of the Project is therefore approximately
1.68 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 225 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.168 µg/m3 for Project construction. 8 “Appendices A-F Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendicesaf.pdf, p. D-1. 9 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 10 See Attachment E for health risk calculations.
11 “Lake Elsinore.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0639486. 12 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 13 See Attachment F for AERSCREEN output files.
8 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD. Guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters used for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)14
Age
Sensitivity
Factor15
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home16
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)17
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify doses for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. We used the following dose algorithm, therefore, to assess exposures:
𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group 14 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 16 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 9 Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
We then used the following equation for each appropriate age group to calculate the overall cancer risk:
𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = do.se by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 788-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.91 years of the entire infantile stage of life (0-2 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1680 2.28E-06
Construction 1.91 0.1680 5.27E-05
Operation 0.09 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 5.27E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 * *
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 * *
Lifetime 30 5.50E-05
*Operational HRA not conducted due to the residential nature of the Project.
The estimated excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infants at the MEIR located approximately 225 meters away, over the course of construction, are approximately 2.28 and 52.7 in 10 one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of construction is approximately 55 in one million. The infant and lifetime construction cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not addressed or identified by the IS/MND or associated documents.
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. The U.S. EPA Exposure Assessment Guidelines suggest an iterative, tiered approach to exposure assessments, starting with a simple screening-level evaluation using basic tools and conservative assumptions.18 If required, a more refined analyses with advanced models and detailed input data can follow.
Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. An EIR should therefore be prepared to include a refined HRA, as recommended by the U.S. EPA. If the refined analysis similarly reaches a determination of significant impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described in our “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section below.
Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions The IS/MND is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.
To reduce the ROG emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the IS/MND consider incorporating the following mitigation measures:
19 • Use super-compliant ROG-content architectural coatings (0 grams per liter to less than 10 grams per liter ROG) during Project construction application of paints and other architectural coatings. • If paints and coatings with ROG content of 0 grams/liter to less than 10 grams/liter cannot be utilized, or they do not reduce emissions to below thresholds, the developer shall avoid application of architectural coatings during the peak smog season: July, August, and September.
Further mitigation used by other land use development projects to address ROG emissions include: 20 • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
18 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, May 2024, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined. 19 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.” Los Angeles County Housing Element Update Program EIR.
August 2021, available at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Housing_final-peirmitigation-monitoring.pdf. 20 “Banning Commerce Center Project.” Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June 2024, available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022090102/2; Draft Environmental Impact Report, p. 1-7. 11 • Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent ROG emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain • Use compliant low-ROG cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent ROG emissions. • Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use prepainted construction materials to the extent practicable. • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency. • Manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent application efficiency.
To reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction, we recommend the IS/MND consider several mitigation measures as listed below. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (“SCAG”) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024 recommends the following Project-level air quality mitigation measures: 21 • Assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower [hp] and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. • Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
• Obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit for portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles. Arrange appropriate consultations with CARB or the local air district to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
• Use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 hp. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final or better engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the project’s lead agency before using other 21 “Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/program-environmental-impact-report-0. 12 technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 Final or better engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible or higher tier standard diesel equipment as it becomes developed and feasible.
• Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated ROG and DPM emissions developed from sources including SCAG and others. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduces emissions released during Project construction.
An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
13 Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files, Phase 1
Attachment B: CalEEMod Output Files, Phase 2
Attachment C: Construction Calculations, Phase 1
Attachment D: Construction Calculations, Phase 2
Attachment E: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment F: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment G: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment H: Paul Rosenfeld CV
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
1 / 30
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
Attachment A
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
2 / 30
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
3 / 30
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
4 / 30
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
5 / 30
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Dexter Village - Phase 1
Construction Start Date 1/5/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.5
Precipitation (days) 9.2
Location 33.69033997890111, -117.3307661694989
County Riverside-South Coast
City Lake Elsinore
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5510
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.35
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 84 Dwelling Unit 5.3 116,940 48,737 — 271 — Parking Lot 196 Space 1.8 0.00 — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
6 / 30
Enclosed Parking
Structure
442 Space 0.00 0.00 — — — —
Single Family
Housing
137 Dwelling Unit 9.4 236,233 0.00 — 443 —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 111 111 20 22 0.03 0.70 1.6 2.3 0.65 0.39 1.0 — 4,623 4,623 0.18 0.18 7.1 4,688 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.4 1.4 49 36 0.06 1.4 20 21 1.2 10 11 — 6,852 6,852 0.27 0.18 0.18 6,878 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.4 6.4 17 16 0.02 0.56 2.3 2.9 0.52 0.82 1.3 — 3,412 3,412 0.11 0.12 1.9 3,451 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.2 1.2 3.1 3.0 < 0.005 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.09 0.15 0.24 — 565 565 0.02 0.02 0.31 571
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
7 / 30
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.2 1.1 20 22 0.03 0.70 1.6 2.3 0.65 0.39 1.0 — 4,623 4,623 0.18 0.18 7.1 4,688 2027 111 111 20 22 0.03 0.70 1.6 2.3 0.65 0.39 1.0 — 4,581 4,581 0.13 0.18 6.4 4,644 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.4 1.4 49 36 0.06 1.4 20 21 1.2 10 11 — 6,852 6,852 0.27 0.18 0.18 6,878 2027 1.1 1.1 20 20 0.03 0.70 1.6 2.3 0.65 0.39 1.0 — 4,463 4,463 0.13 0.18 0.17 4,519 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.83 0.79 17 16 0.02 0.56 2.3 2.9 0.52 0.82 1.3 — 3,412 3,412 0.11 0.12 1.9 3,451 2027 6.4 6.4 5.5 5.5 0.01 0.20 0.41 0.60 0.19 0.10 0.28 — 1,159 1,159 0.03 0.04 0.68 1,173 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.15 0.14 3.1 3.0 < 0.005 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.09 0.15 0.24 — 565 565 0.02 0.02 0.31 571 2027 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.00 < 0.005 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 192 192 0.01 0.01 0.11 194
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
8 / 30
Off-Roa 1.1 1.1 40 28 0.05 1.1 — 1.1 1.0 — 1.0 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 d
Equipm
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 20 20 — 10 10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 1.1 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
9 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 225 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.2 6.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.0 1.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.3 1.3 49 35 0.06 1.4 — 1.4 1.2 — 1.2 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
10 / 30
Dust — — — — — — 9.2 9.2 — 3.7 3.7 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.11 4.0 2.9 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 542 542 0.02 < 0.005 — 544 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.76 0.76 — 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.73 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 90 90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 254 254 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 257 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
11 / 30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21 21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.5 3.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
12 / 30
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.37 11 8.5 0.01 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 — 1,431 1,431 0.06 0.01 — 1,436 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.07 2.1 1.6 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 237 237 0.01 < 0.005 — 238 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.46 0.43 7.9 0.00 0.00 1.4 1.4 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,514 1,514 0.06 0.05 5.1 1,537 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 711 711 0.02 0.11 1.9 746 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.49 0.44 0.48 6.0 0.00 0.00 1.4 1.4 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,392 1,392 0.02 0.05 0.13 1,409 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.79 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 712 712 0.02 0.11 0.05 745 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.26 0.31 3.7 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 842 842 0.01 0.03 1.3 853 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 425 425 0.01 0.07 0.50 445 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
13 / 30
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 139 139 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 141 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 70 70 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 74 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.14 4.4 3.3 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 558 558 0.02 < 0.005 — 560 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
14 / 30
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.80 0.61 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 92 92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 93 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.50 0.44 0.38 7.3 0.00 0.00 1.4 1.4 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,486 1,486 0.02 0.05 4.6 1,507 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.73 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 698 698 0.02 0.10 1.8 732 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.47 0.42 0.43 5.5 0.00 0.00 1.4 1.4 0.00 0.34 0.34 — 1,367 1,367 0.02 0.05 0.12 1,383 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.76 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 699 699 0.02 0.10 0.05 730 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 322 322 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 327 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 163 163 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 170 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53 53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 54 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
15 / 30
3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.50 0.50 13 11 0.01 0.58 — 0.58 0.54 — 0.54 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.23 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.73 0.58 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 83 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
16 / 30
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.63 206 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10 10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.7 1.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 1.1 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
17 / 30
Architect 111 111 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.3 7.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.3 Architect
ural
Coating
s
6.1 6.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.1 1.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 297 297 < 0.005 0.01 0.92 301 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
18 / 30
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.5 2.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
19 / 30
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
20 / 30
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/5/2026 1/16/2026 5.0 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/19/2026 2/27/2026 5.0 30 —
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
21 / 30
Building Construction Building Construction 3/2/2026 4/29/2027 5.0 304 — Paving Paving 4/30/2027 5/27/2027 5.0 20 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/28/2027 6/24/2027 5.0 20 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 2 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.0 37 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
22 / 30
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 18 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 110 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 24 10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 22 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
23 / 30
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 715,175 238,392 0.00 0.00 4,610
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15 0.00 0.00
Grading — — 90 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Paving Parking Lot 1.8 100%
Paving Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 100%
Paving Single Family Housing 1.5 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
24 / 30
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 29 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.8 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 30 annual hectares burned
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
25 / 30
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
26 / 30
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 85
AQ-PM 52
AQ-DPM 20
Drinking Water 69
Lead Risk Housing 14
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 23
Traffic 83
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 7.7
Groundwater 38
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
27 / 30
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 80
Impaired Water Bodies 51
Solid Waste 76
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 33
Cardio-vascular 84
Low Birth Weights 41
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 50
Housing 31
Linguistic 11
Poverty 48
Unemployment 29
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 69.31861927
Employed 35.14692673
Median HI 73.06557167
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.15770563
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 48.45374054
Transportation —
Auto Access 91.71050943
Active commuting 4.978827153
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
28 / 30
Social —
2-parent households 67.84293597
Voting 41.5629411
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 88.05338124
Park access 24.81714359
Retail density 13.47363018
Supermarket access 19.72282818
Tree canopy 8.623123316
Housing —
Homeownership 67.77877582
Housing habitability 89.11843963
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.12909021 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 93.91761838
Uncrowded housing 56.87155139
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 79.94353907
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 79.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 47.6
Cognitively Disabled 95.5
Physically Disabled 83.0
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
29 / 30
Heart Attack ER Admissions 38.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 44.8
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 51.5
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 43.1
Elderly 64.7
English Speaking 73.3
Foreign-born 47.1
Outdoor Workers 45.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 68.2
Traffic Density 78.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 46.7
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 53.5
Dexter Village - Phase 1 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
30 / 30
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 49
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 59
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with IS/MND.
Construction: Construction Phases See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Consistent with IS/MND.
Construction: Architectural Coatings Consistent with IS/MND.
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
1 / 26
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.3. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.5. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
3.7. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Attachment B
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
2 / 26
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
3 / 26
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
4 / 26
8.1. Justifications
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
5 / 26
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Dexter Village - Phase 2
Construction Start Date 1/4/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.5
Precipitation (days) 9.2
Location 33.69033997890111, -117.3307661694989
County Riverside-South Coast
City Lake Elsinore
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5510
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.35
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
230 Dwelling Unit 6.1 202,590 28,859 — 743 —
Parking Lot 214 Space 0.60 0.00 0.00 — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
6 / 26
Enclosed Parking
Structure
234 Space 0.00 93,600 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.6 1.5 21 28 0.03 0.71 3.0 3.7 0.66 0.72 1.4 — 6,351 6,351 0.16 0.29 12 6,454 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 58 58 21 25 0.03 0.71 3.0 3.7 0.66 0.72 1.4 — 6,129 6,129 0.16 0.29 0.30 6,221 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.5 3.5 15 18 0.02 0.50 2.1 2.6 0.47 0.51 0.97 — 4,348 4,348 0.11 0.21 3.5 4,416 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.64 0.64 2.7 3.3 < 0.005 0.09 0.39 0.48 0.09 0.09 0.18 — 720 720 0.02 0.03 0.58 731
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
7 / 26
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2027 1.6 1.5 21 28 0.03 0.71 3.0 3.7 0.66 0.72 1.4 — 6,351 6,351 0.16 0.29 12 6,454 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.6 1.4 21 25 0.03 0.71 3.0 3.7 0.66 0.72 1.4 — 6,129 6,129 0.16 0.29 0.30 6,221 2028 58 58 13 11 0.01 0.58 0.54 0.77 0.54 0.13 0.59 — 1,694 1,694 0.06 0.02 0.04 1,702 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.1 1.0 15 18 0.02 0.50 2.1 2.6 0.47 0.51 0.97 — 4,348 4,348 0.11 0.21 3.5 4,416 2028 3.5 3.5 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 129 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.20 0.18 2.7 3.3 < 0.005 0.09 0.39 0.48 0.09 0.09 0.18 — 720 720 0.02 0.03 0.58 731 2028 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 21 21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 21
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
8 / 26
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.62 19 14 0.02 0.69— 0.69 0.64— 0.64— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.44 0.44 13 10 0.02 0.48— 0.48 0.45— 0.45— 1,688 1,688 0.07 0.01— 1,694 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.08 2.4 1.8 < 0.005 0.09— 0.09 0.08— 0.08— 279 279 0.01 < 0.005— 280 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.92 0.82 0.71 14 0.00 0.00 2.7 2.7 0.00 0.63 0.63— 2,774 2,774 0.03 0.10 8.6 2,812 Vendor 0.05 0.02 1.2 0.39 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.36 0.02 0.09 0.11— 1,180 1,180 0.03 0.18 3.0 1,236 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.88 0.78 0.80 10 0.00 0.00 2.7 2.7 0.00 0.63 0.63— 2,551 2,551 0.04 0.10 0.22 2,581 Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
9 / 26
Vendor 0.05 0.02 1.3 0.40 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.36 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,181 1,181 0.03 0.18 0.08 1,234 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.62 0.55 0.63 7.6 0.00 0.00 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,819 1,819 0.03 0.07 2.6 1,842 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.91 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 831 831 0.02 0.12 0.91 870 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.4 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 301 301 < 0.005 0.01 0.43 305 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 144 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.50 0.50 13 11 0.01 0.58 — 0.58 0.54 — 0.54 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
10 / 26
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.9 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.9 d
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.5 1.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.5 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 187 187 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 189 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.1 1.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
11 / 26
3.5. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.50 0.50 13 11 0.01 0.58 — 0.58 0.54 — 0.54 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.03 0.70 0.56 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 80 80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
12 / 26
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 183 183 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 185 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.8 9.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.6 1.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
13 / 26
Off-Roa 0.05 0.05 1.1 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 d
Equipm
Architect
ural
Coating
s
58 58 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.0 8.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.1 Architect
ural
Coating
s
3.5 3.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.3 1.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.3 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.64 0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
14 / 26
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.16 1.9 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 501 501 0.01 0.02 0.04 507 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.1 5.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
15 / 26
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
16 / 26
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
17 / 26
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Building Construction Building Construction 1/4/2027 12/28/2027 5.0 257 — Paving Paving 12/29/2027 1/27/2028 5.0 22 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2028 2/28/2028 5.0 22 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 2 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 2 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.0 37 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction Worker 205 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 40 10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
18 / 26
Paving Worker 15 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 41 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 410,245 136,748 0.00 0.00 1,568
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
19 / 26
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Paving Parking Lot 0.60 100%
Paving Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
20 / 26
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 29 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.8 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 30 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
21 / 26
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 85
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
22 / 26
AQ-PM 52
AQ-DPM 20
Drinking Water 69
Lead Risk Housing 14
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 23
Traffic 83
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 7.7
Groundwater 38
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 80
Impaired Water Bodies 51
Solid Waste 76
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 33
Cardio-vascular 84
Low Birth Weights 41
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 50
Housing 31
Linguistic 11
Poverty 48
Unemployment 29
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
23 / 26
Above Poverty 69.31861927
Employed 35.14692673
Median HI 73.06557167
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.15770563
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 48.45374054
Transportation —
Auto Access 91.71050943
Active commuting 4.978827153
Social —
2-parent households 67.84293597
Voting 41.5629411
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 88.05338124
Park access 24.81714359
Retail density 13.47363018
Supermarket access 19.72282818
Tree canopy 8.623123316
Housing —
Homeownership 67.77877582
Housing habitability 89.11843963
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.12909021 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 93.91761838
Uncrowded housing 56.87155139
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 79.94353907
Arthritis 0.0
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
24 / 26
Asthma ER Admissions 79.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 47.6
Cognitively Disabled 95.5
Physically Disabled 83.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 38.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 44.8
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 51.5
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 43.1
Elderly 64.7
English Speaking 73.3
Foreign-born 47.1
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
25 / 26
Outdoor Workers 45.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 68.2
Traffic Density 78.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 46.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 53.5
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 49
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 59
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Dexter Village - Phase 2 Detailed Report, 12/23/2025
26 / 26
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with IS/MND.
Construction: Construction Phases See comment on: "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Consistent with IS/MND.
Construction: Architectural Coatings Consistent with IS/MND.
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Site Preparation 10 536 0.0187 543 10
Grading 30 536 0.0560 543 30
Construction 300 536 0.5597 543 304
Paving 20 536 0.0373 543 20
Architectural Coating 20 536 0.0373 543 20
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 2/3/2026 1/5/2026
End Date 7/24/2027 7/2/2027
Total Days 536 543
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment C
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Construction 230 380 0.6053 424 257
Paving 20 380 0.0526 424 22
Architectural Coating 20 380 0.0526 424 22
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 3/18/2027 1/4/2027
End Date 4/1/2028 3/3/2028
Total Days 380 424
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment D
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.11 Total DPM (lbs) 480.9863014 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.602739726 Total DPM (g) 218175.3863 Construction Duration (days) 361 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.003204541 Total DPM (lbs) 217.5890411 Release Height (meters) 3
Total DPM (g) 98698.38904 Total Acreage 23.05
Start Date 1/5/2026 Max Horizontal (meters) 431.93
End Date 1/1/2027 Min Horizontal (meters) 215.96
Construction Days 361 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Urban
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.13 Population 73,595
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.712328767 Start Date 1/5/2026 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 3/3/2028
Total DPM (lbs) 260 Total Construction Days 788
Total DPM (g) 117936 Total Years of Construction 2.16
Start Date 1/1/2027 Total Years of Operation 27.84
End Date 1/1/2028
Construction Days 365
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521
Construction Duration (days) 62
Total DPM (lbs) 3.397260274
Total DPM (g) 1540.99726
Start Date 1/1/2028
End Date 3/3/2028
Construction Days 62
2028
2027
Construction
2026 Total
Attachment E
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1680 2.28E-06
Construction 1.91 0.1680 5.27E-05
Operation 0.09 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 5.27E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 * *
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 * *
Lifetime 30 5.50E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 12/24/25
17:12:00
TITLE: Dexter Village, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.320E‐02 g/s 0.254E‐01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.344E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.273E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 431.93 meters 1417.09 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 215.96 meters 708.53 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 73595
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 1.680 15 225.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment F
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1.00 1.289 2525.00 0.7014E‐01
25.00 1.347 2550.00 0.6923E
‐01
50.00 1.403 2575.00 0.6834E‐01
75.00 1.452 2600.00 0.6747E‐01 100.00 1.499 2625.00 0.6661E‐01 125.00 1.544 2650.00 0.6577E‐01 150.00 1.585 2675.00 0.6495E‐01 175.00 1.624 2700.00 0.6414E‐01 200.00 1.660 2725.00 0.6336E‐01 225.00 1.680 2750.00 0.6259E‐01 250.00 1.467 2775.00 0.6184E‐01 275.00 1.142 2800.00 0.6110E
‐01
300.00 0.9951 2825.00 0.6038E‐01 325.00 0.8936 2850.00 0.5967E‐01 350.00 0.8102 2875.00 0.5897E‐01 375.00 0.7510 2900.00 0.5829E‐01 400.00 0.7004 2925.00 0.5762E‐01 425.00 0.6552 2950.00 0.5696E‐01 450.00 0.6150 2975.00 0.5631E‐01 475.00 0.5787 3000.00 0.5568E‐01 500.00 0.5461 3025.00 0.5506E‐01 525.00 0.5163 3050.00 0.5445E
‐01
550.00 0.4891 3075.00 0.5385E‐01 575.00 0.4643 3100.00 0.5327E‐01 600.00 0.4416 3125.00 0.5270E‐01 625.00 0.4208 3150.00 0.5213E‐01 650.00 0.4013 3175.00 0.5158E‐01 675.00 0.3835 3200.00 0.5104E‐01 700.00 0.3671 3225.00 0.5051E‐01 725.00 0.3517 3250.00 0.4999E‐01 750.00 0.3374 3275.00 0.4947E‐01 775.00 0.3241 3300.00 0.4897E
‐01
800.00 0.3115 3325.00 0.4848E‐01 825.00 0.2998 3350.00 0.4799E‐01 850.00 0.2890 3375.00 0.4751E‐01 875.00 0.2788 3400.00 0.4704E‐01 900.00 0.2690 3425.00 0.4658E‐01 925.00 0.2599 3450.00 0.4612E‐01 950.00 0.2513 3475.00 0.4568E‐01 975.00 0.2432 3500.00 0.4524E‐01 1000.00 0.2355 3525.00 0.4481E‐01 1025.00 0.2282 3550.00 0.4438E
‐01
1050.00 0.2213 3575.00 0.4396E‐01 1075.00 0.2148 3600.00 0.4355E‐01 1100.00 0.2086 3625.00 0.4315E‐01 1125.00 0.2027 3650.00 0.4275E‐01 1150.00 0.1971 3675.00 0.4236E‐01 1175.00 0.1916 3700.00 0.4198E‐01 1200.00 0.1865 3725.00 0.4160E‐01 1225.00 0.1816 3750.00 0.4123E‐01 1250.00 0.1769 3775.00 0.4086E‐01 1275.00 0.1725 3800.00 0.4050E
‐01
1300.00 0.1682 3825.00 0.4015E‐01 1325.00 0.1641 3850.00 0.3980E‐01 1350.00 0.1603 3875.00 0.3945E‐01 1375.00 0.1565 3900.00 0.3911E‐01 1400.00 0.1528 3925.00 0.3878E‐01 1425.00 0.1493 3950.00 0.3845E‐01 1450.00 0.1460 3975.00 0.3813E‐01 1475.00 0.1427 4000.00 0.3835E‐01 1500.00 0.1396 4025.00 0.3803E‐01 1525.00 0.1366 4050.00 0.3771E
‐01
1550.00 0.1338 4075.00 0.3739E‐01 1575.00 0.1310 4100.00 0.3708E‐01 1600.00 0.1283 4125.00 0.3677E‐01 1625.00 0.1258 4150.00 0.3647E‐01 1650.00 0.1233 4175.00 0.3617E‐01 1675.00 0.1209 4200.00 0.3588E‐01 1700.00 0.1185 4225.00 0.3559E‐01 1725.00 0.1163 4250.00 0.3530E‐01 1750.00 0.1141 4275.00 0.3502E‐01 1775.00 0.1120 4300.00 0.3474E
‐01
1800.00 0.1099 4325.00 0.3447E‐01 1825.00 0.1079 4350.00 0.3419E‐01 1850.00 0.1060 4375.00 0.3393E‐01 1875.00 0.1042 4400.00 0.3366E‐01 1900.00 0.1023 4425.00 0.3340E‐01 1925.00 0.1006 4450.00 0.3315E‐01 1950.00 0.9888E‐01 4475.00 0.3289E‐01 1975.00 0.9723E‐01 4500.00 0.3265E‐01 2000.00 0.9562E‐01 4525.00 0.3240E
‐01
2025.00 0.9407E‐01 4550.00 0.3216E‐01 2050.00 0.9255E‐01 4575.00 0.3192E‐01 2075.00 0.9108E‐01 4600.00 0.3168E‐01 2100.00 0.8965E‐01 4625.00 0.3144E‐01 2125.00 0.8825E‐01 4650.00 0.3121E‐01 2150.00 0.8688E‐01 4675.00 0.3099E‐01 2175.00 0.8555E‐01 4700.00 0.3076E‐01 2200.00 0.8426E‐01 4725.00 0.3054E‐01 2225.00 0.8300E
‐01 4750.00 0.3032E‐01
2250.00 0.8177E‐01 4775.00 0.3010E‐01 2275.00 0.8057E‐01 4800.00 0.2989E‐01 2300.00 0.7941E‐01 4825.00 0.2968E‐01 2325.00 0.7827E‐01 4850.00 0.2947E‐01 2350.00 0.7717E‐01 4875.00 0.2926E‐01 2375.00 0.7609E‐01 4900.00 0.2906E‐01 2400.00 0.7503E‐01 4925.00 0.2885E‐01 2425.00 0.7401E‐01 4950.00 0.2866E
‐01
2450.00 0.7300E‐01 4975.00 0.2846E‐01 2475.00 0.7203E‐01 5000.00 0.2826E‐01 2500.00 0.7107E‐01
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 1.685 1.685 1.685 1.685 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 224.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.289 1.289 1.289 1.289 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist, P.G.
California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
Attachment G
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); 2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).
Educational:
Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).
Private Sector:
Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking 3 Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:
Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.
Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.
In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.
Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.
In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.
Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.
Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.
Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.
BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment H
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.
Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.
Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.
Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.
Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a Public Hearing on February 24, 2026, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the following:
Planning Application No. 2024-15 (Dexter Village): The Dexter Village project is a proposed residential development with 230 apartment units (including 22 affordable units), 84 condominiums/townhomes, and 137 single-family residences for a total of 451 units on an approximately 23-acre site. The projectís requests include Tentative Tract Map No. 38512 to subdivide the property into separate lots for single-family and multi-family residential development, Residential Design Review No. 2024-07 for the architectural design of the residential buildings, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-08 to allow development of condominiums within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zoning designation. The townhomes consist of a mixture of two- and three-bedroom units ranging from 1,230 to 1,508 square feet (SF), the detached single-family homes consist of three- and four-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,323 to 2,936 SF, and the apartments consist of one- to threebedroom units ranging from 657 to 1,371 SF. Parking is proposed to be provided in attached two-car garages and individual driveways for the single-family and condominium units and in one or two-car tandem garages for the apartments in addition to open parking spaces. Dexter Village proposes onsite amenities for residents such as recreation center, pool, playground, and fitness gym. The project is within the Commercial Mixed Use Zoning District and is located on Dexter Avenue between 2nd and 3rd Streets (APN: 377-090-013, 377-090-037, 377-090-039, and 377-090-040).
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS; Environmental Review No. 2023-02) was prepared for the project to assess potential environmental impacts. The IS determined that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts, but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND; State Clearinghouse No. 2025110457) was prepared and was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period from November 12, 2025 to December 12, 2025. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On January 20, 2026, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission by a 5-0 vote recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to submit written information, express opinions or otherwise submit written evidence by email to [email protected].
If you wish to legally challenge any action taken by the City on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City prior to or at the Public Hearing. If you require accommodation to participate in a Public Hearing, please contact the Administrative Secretary at (951) 674-3124 ext. 297. All Agenda materials are available for review on the Cityís website at www.lakeelsinore.org the Friday before the Public Hearing.
FURTHER INFORMATION on this item may be obtained by contacting Tamara Harrison, Technical Manager in the Planning Division at [email protected] or (951) 506-2061.
Damaris Abraham,
Community Development Director
CERTIFIED PROPERTY
OWNER'S LIST AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
I, Denise Kaspar, hereby certify that the attached ownership list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest equalized assessment roll of the Riverside County Tax Collector, within the area described on said application (300’ EXTENDED TO 900’ TO MEET MINIMUM). Furthermore, I certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statement and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
APN: 377-090-013, 037, 039, 040
Subject Address: DEXTER & 3RD
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
October 6, 2025 Denise Kaspar
Advanced Listing Services Inc
Advanced Listing Services Inc
Ownership Listings & Radius Maps
P.O. Box 2593 •Dana Point, CA •92624
Office: (949) 361-3921 •Cell: (949) 310-6869
www.Advancedlisting.com
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Account Number: 5209153
Ad Order Number: 0011778429
Customer's Reference/PO Number:
Publication: The Press-Enterprise
Publication Dates: 02/13/2026
Total Amount: $549.12
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $549.12
Notice ID: RQd8LAeTn9os5KTnsRKN
Invoice Text: [https://res.cloudinary.com/dgqq2xsfd/image/upload/enoticeproduction/exports/1770740667518/image001.jpg] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a Public Hearing on February 24, 2026, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the following: Planning Application No. 2024-15 (Dexter Village): The Dexter Village project is a proposed residential development with 230 apartment units (including 22 affordable units), 84 condominiums/townhomes, and 137 single-family residences for a total of 451 units on an approximately 23-acre site. The project’s requests include Tentative Tract Map No. 38512 to subdivide the property into separate lots for single-family and multifamily residential development, Residential Design Review No. 2024-07 for the architectural design of the residential buildings, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2024- 08 to allow development of condominiums within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zoning designation. The townhomes consist of a mixture of two- and three-bedroom units ranging from 1,230 to 1,508 square feet (SF), the detached single-family homes consist of three- and four-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,323 to 2,936 SF, and the apartments consist of one- to three-bedroom units ranging from 657 to 1,371 SF.
Parking is proposed to be provided in attached two-car garages and individual driveways for the single-family and condominium units and in one or two-car tandem garages for the apartments in addition to open parking spaces. Dexter Village proposes onsite amenities for residents such as recreation center, pool, playground, PA 2024-15 (Dexter Village) CC - Page 1 of 1
The Press-Enterprise
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Publication: The Press-Enterprise
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011778429
FILE NO. 0011778429
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I
am over the age of eighteen years and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESSENTERPRISE, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed and
published daily in the County of
Riverside, and which newspaper has
been adjudicated a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of Riverside, State
of California, under date of April 25,
1952, Case Number 54446, under
date of March 29, 1957, Case Number
65673, under date of August 25, 1995,
Case Number 267864, and under date
of September 16, 2013, Case Number
RIC 1309013; that the notice, of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has
been published in said newspaper in
accordance with the instructions of the
person(s) requesting publication, and
not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to wit:
02/13/2026
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Date: February 13, 2026.
At: Riverside, California
______________________________
Signature
PA 2024-15 (Dexter Village) CC - Page 1 of 1
Subject APN: 377-090-013, 037, 039, 040 Address: DEXTER & 3RD 900’ RADIUS LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
Advanced Listing Services Inc
Ownership Listings & Radius Maps
P.O. Box 2593 •Dana Point, CA •92624
Office: (949) 361-3921 •Cell: (949) 310-6869
www.Advancedlisting.com [email protected]
#13008
9/1/2025
900' Ownership Listing
Prepared for:
377-090-013, 037, 039, 040
3RD & DEXTER
DEXTER & 3RD
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
Fairbrook Communities LLC
18100 VON KARMEN AVE STE 870
IRVINE CA 92612
347-250-009
BRUCE ALLEN EICHORN
455 W NAOMI AVE
ARCADIA CA 91006
347-250-010 377-110-045, 057, 058
INV V22
60 NAVESINK AVE
RUMSON NJ 7760
347-250-011
INV V22
445 PARK AVE #10C
NEW YORK NY 10027
377-030-071
BROTHERS HOLDING PALEROS
4885 GREEN CREST DR
YORBA LINDA CA 92887
377-030-092 377-031-012, 014
BURGERS IN-N-OUT
13502 HAMBURGER LN
BALDWIN PARK CA 91706
377-081-014
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
P O BOX 3000
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530
377-081-015
JOHN WILLIAM ODOHERTY
19025 GROVEWOOD DR
CORONA CA 92881
377-081-017, 019
ELSINORE MCH
405 STATE HIGHWAY 121 #C-140
LEWISVILLE TX 75067
377-081-020
HOWARD NILE GREENLEE
3791 DECADE ST
LAS VEGAS NV 89121
377-081-025
GREG CASSIDY
18650 COLLIER #D
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530
377-081-026, 028
R J LACAYO
P O BOX 1096
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92531
377-081-027, 029, 30, 031
JOSEPH A LACAYO
PO BOX 1096
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92531
377-081-032, 033
SHUFANG WAN
28780 RED GUM DR
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-081-034
CHICK FIL A INC
5200 BUFFINGTON RD
ATLANTA GA 30349
377-081-035
YUMA SRZ
3158 AUTO CENTER #E
STOCKTON CA 95212
377-090-001
WENDELL E VENERABLE
23535 HIGHWAY 74
PERRIS CA 92570
377-090-002, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12
KARAS AVA
4030 BIRCH ST #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
377-090-013, 037, 039, 040
3RD & DEXTER
2280 WARDLOW CIR
CORONA CA 92878
377-090-033
HARSH CHHABRA
3290 CARRIAGE HOUSE DR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
377-090-034
LEAL PROPERTIES
300 MARANATHA DR
HOLLISTER CA 95023
377-090-035, 036
H DOST
45029 PROMISE RD
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-090-042
PROP HAMRA
5140 E LA PALMA AVE #203
ANAHEIM CA 92807
377-090-052, 053
WAL MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
TRUST
1301 SE 10TH ST
BENTONVILLE AR 72716
377-100-003 377-380-003
CAMBERN AVENUE HOUSING ASSOC
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO N #800
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
377-100-004
WENDY SIEGEL
PO BOX 741
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92531
377-100-006, 009, 010 347-360-002
KARAS AVA
4030 BIRCH ST
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
377-100-007
PHYLISS THOMAS
29491 THOMAS ST
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-110-005
STATE OF CALIF
464 W FOURTH ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401
377-110-009
INV KATUNDA
24235 MAZE STONE CT
HEMET CA 92545
377-110-010, 056
HILLS RV PARK ELSINORE
1914 TERRACINA DR #130
SACRAMENTO CA 95834
377-110-019 377-110-022
JESSICA DARSHAY
34236 WOODMONT
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-110-020
KIRK E MUNIO
29850 2ND ST
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-110-037, 038, 039, 040, 050
EDWARD L LAMBERT
29885 2ND ST #A
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-110-046
PROP LABEDA
29910 OHANA CIR
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-110-052, 053, 055
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
INC
ONE KAISER PLAZA # 15L
OAKLAND CA 94612
377-380-001
MARTIN FRANCO
18700 CAMBERN AVE
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-380-017
TIMOTHY RHODES
18740 CAMBERN AVE
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532
377-380-018
JULIO C BUSTOS
29315 3RD ST
LAKE ELSINORE CA 92532