San Jacinto City Council
August 4, 2026

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by air quality and greenhouse gas experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, CIH, agricultural resources experts Henry House and Gregory House of House Agricultural Consultants, and expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., whose written comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A, B, C, and D respectively.

As discussed below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant and unmitigated impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, indoor air quality, agricultural resources, and biological resources. SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) prior to approval of the Project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Chacon Farms Project proposes to subdivide approximately 75.7 gross acres of existing agricultural land into 419 single-family residential lots, four open space lots, and associated roadways and infrastructure. The Project site, located at 710 Cawston Avenue North in the City of San Jacinto is designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

To facilitate the proposed development, the Project requires several discretionary approvals, including a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential, a Zone Change from Rural Residential to Residential–Low Density, a Planned Development Permit, Site Plan and Design Review, approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 39076, and adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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 SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

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 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 (Bakersfield Citizens); 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 SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

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.

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. The MND Failed to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Air Quality Impacts
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., from SWAPE reviewed the IS/MND and concluded that it fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit A.

As discussed below, SWAPE concluded that the MND failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts and, as a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project may be underestimated. An EIR is required to disclose and mitigate these impacts.

A. The MND’s analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.

SWAPE 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. A, p. 1.) To estimate the Project’s emissions, the MND utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). (Ex. A, p. 1.) CalEEMod relies on recommended default values based on site SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

specific information related to a number of factors (Id.) CEQA requires that any changes to the default values must be justified by substantial evidence. (Ex. A, p. 2.) SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND. (Ex. A, p. 2.) This results in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Id.) As a result, an EIR should be prepared that adequately evaluates the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id.) Specifically, SWAPE 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. A, p. 1.)

2. Unsubstantiated Amount of Required Demolition (Ex. A, p. 2.)

3. Unsubstantiated Assumption that the Project will be all-electric (Ex. A, p. 3.) 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.

II. An EIR is Required to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

A. The MND fails to analyze the SCAQMD’s 2035 Service Population Efficiency Target
The MND incorrectly concludes that the Project will have less than significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts because it would be below the 2027 interpolated South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 3.96 metric tons of CO2e per service population. However, this interpolated threshold is not supported by any relevant local or state guidance. The SCAQMD population efficiency thresholds are 4.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population for 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population for 2035. It is unsubstantiated for the MND to interpolate between each benchmark and misleading to use this fabricated benchmark to conclude no significant impacts.

Additionally, the Project’s estimated emissions are 3.957 MT CO₂e/SP/year while the asserted threshold is 3.96 MT CO₂e/SP/year, making the difference only 0.003 MT CO₂e/SP/year. This difference is both negligible and counter to the required precision of CalEEMod reporting. CalEEmod reports GHG emissions with a maximum of 2 decimal points, making these reported calculations unsupported by the model calculations. Therefore, in using correct SCAQMD precision, the Project’s estimated GHG emissions come out to 4.0 MT SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

CO₂e/SP/year, which exceeds both the SCAQMD 2035 threshold as well as the unsubstantiated interpolated 2027 threshold.
(Ex. A, p. 6.) These exceedances of the SCAQMD’s 3.0 MTCO2e/service population threshold indicate a significant GHG impact that must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR.

B. The MND fails to adequately integrate all necessary and feasible mitigation measures
CEQA provides that all Projects must include mitigation measures “proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) In 2024, the Southern California Association of Governments’ Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect Socal 20241included the following mitigation recommendations for GHG emissions:
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including:
o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit.
1 “Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/program-environmental-impact-report-0.

SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems beyond Title 24 minimum requirements.
o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of lightcolored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment.
o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices.
o Incorporate passive solar design.
o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Use no gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment.
o Install alternative fuel (i.e., electric, hydrogen-fueled, etc.) vehicle charging and fueling stations.
o Encourage projects to reduce natural gas infrastructure in buildings and/or reduce the use of natural gas appliances, with exceptions for limited uses. • Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies. o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles. o Improve or increase access to transit.
o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, day care, and medical care.
o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network. o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks or transit service. o Provide traffic calming measures.
o Limit or eliminate park supply.
o Provide parking cash-out programs.
o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program. • Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network. • Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations.
• Adopt employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, provide end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs. • Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles. • Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in. • Implement preferential parking permit program.

SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

• Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules. • Implement commute trip reduction marketing.
• Price workplace parking.

The MND fails to consider the Connect Socal 2024 EIR mitigation measures for impacts to GHG emissions. An EIR must be prepared that incorporates these suggested mitigation measures as applicable to ensure that the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts are minimized to the extent possible
II. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project may have Significant Impacts on Indoor Air Quality
The MND fails to discuss, disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant health risks posed by the Project from formaldehyde, a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and in Mr. Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project’s residential units.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State as a TAC. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in one million. (Ex. B, p. 2.) The MND fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project.

Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde from the Project.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long period. He states, “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann found that future residents of the Project’s residential units will be exposed to a cancer risk of 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex.

B, pp. 3-4) This is more than 12 times SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million.

SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

Mr. Offermann also found that there is a fair argument that future employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 17.7 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with CARB’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., pp. 4-5.) This exceeds the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. B, pp. 5, 12-14.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 6-

10.) Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. (Id., pp. 12-

14.) Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. (Id.) Since the MND does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures have been considered.

When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.

Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [“As the District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See, Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].)
The failure of the MND to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (“CBIA”) (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386. In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emphasis added].) The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions will be from the Project. People will be residing in the Project’s buildings once built and emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks.

The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800.) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id. [citing e.g., PRC §§ 21000, 21001].) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and their health and safety must be subject to CEQA’s safeguards.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See, County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The proposed buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. Currently, outside of Mr. Offermann’s comments, the City does not have any idea what risks will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project. As a result, the City must include an analysis and discussion in an EIR which discloses and analyzes SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

the health risks that the Project’s formaldehyde emissions may have on future residents and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.

Mr. Offermann’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on human health, necessitating preparation of an EIR.

III. An EIR is Required to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Impacts to Agricultural Resources
Gregory and Henry House from House Agricultural Consultants (“House”) reviewed the IS/MND and concluded that it fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s impacts on agricultural resources. As discussed below, House concluded that the MND failed to comply with CEQA’s requirements to analyze impacts on agricultural resources and failed to comply with the generalplan policies of the City of San Jacinto. An EIR is required to disclose and mitigate these impacts.

A. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze Impacts to Agricultural Resources i. Conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance The Project is located on Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide importance. (Exhibit C, pp. 1-2.) The MND expressly acknowledges that the Project will convert these agricultural resources into urban uses but, nevertheless, concludes that the impact is less than significant because the City’s General Plan anticipates future urban development on the site. (Id.) As House explains, this conclusion is legally insufficient. (Ex. C, pp. 1-2.) CEQA requires an analysis of whether a project will convert Prime Farmland of Statewide Importance into nonagricultural uses. (Id.) The General Plan’s anticipation of future urban development on the site does not eliminate the environmental impact of converting agricultural land, no does it satisfy CEQA’s requirement to analyze the impacts of that conversion. However, the MND asserts that the General Plan’s designation makes the impacts of that conversion less than significant, without providing any analysis supporting that conclusion. (Id.) This conclusory reasoning violates CEQA’s requirements. Courts have held that the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the "existing physical conditions in the affected area.” Communities for a Better Env't v.

S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 48 Cal. 4th 310, 320. Therefore, it is improper for the City to utilize the potential future conditions of the site predicated on the General Plan’s designation as the baseline for analysis.

SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

The General Plan is not the CEQA baseline. For example, in Woodward Park, a developer proposed building a 477,000–square–foot office park and shopping center on a vacant lot. The existing zoning and plan designations allowed a 694,000–square–foot facility to be built there. (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 683, 698.) The EIR, for the most part, compared the proposed project's impacts on traffic congestion and air pollution with the larger, hypothetical development allowed by the applicable zoning and plans rather than with the vacant lot or the existing physical situation. (Id. at pp. 707–708, 58.) The court concluded that the “hypothetical office park was a legally incorrect baseline,” that the EIR “failed to use the existing physical environment as the environmental baseline, and [that] none of the city's or [developer's] arguments show[ed] that any other baseline was permissible.” (Id. at pp. 691, 711; see also, Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 91.)
The analysis must be centered on the existing conditions of the site: Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. An EIR must be prepared to analyze the impacts on agricultural resources.
ii. Failure to consider cumulative impacts
CEQA requires that agencies evaluate whether a project’s incremental contribution to environmental impacts is cumulatively considerable. Here, the MND acknowledges that the Project will convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, but fails to analyze the Project’s contribution to the ongoing cumulative conversion of agricultural lands within the region.

The MND fails to analyze regional farmland conversion trends or to identify other approved or reasonably foreseeable development projects for the purpose of assessing the cumulative loss of agricultural resources. Instead, the MND merely concludes that there would be no off-site conversion of farmland because the construction would remain within the Project footprint. (Ex. C, p. 2.) This is a misunderstanding of CEQA’s required cumulative impacts inquiry. The relevant inquiry is not whether the Project extends beyond its boundaries, but rather if the conversion contemplated by the Project contributes to the broader cumulative loss of agricultural resources throughout a region in such a way that it is cumulatively considerable. (Id.) An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the cumulative impact to agricultural resources. iii. Failure to incorporate proper mitigation
The MND also fails to incorporate feasible and readily available mitigation measures. As explained by House, agricultural conversation easements (“ACEs”) are the accepted method of mitigating permanent farmland conversion in California and are regularly required to offset the loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, like the loss caused by this Project. (Exhibit C, pp. 2-3.) House concludes that the purchase of an ACE could reduce the SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

impact the lost farmland to less-than-significant. (Id.) However, rather than analyzing this mitigation measure, the MND simply concludes that no mitigation is required because, as discussed above, the General Plan anticipated urban development at the Project site. Based on the failure to analyze and implement this feasible mitigation measure, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the impact to agricultural resources.

B. The MND Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with the City’s General Plan The MND fails to demonstrate consistency with the City of Jacinto General Plan’s policies around the protection of agricultural resources. Under CEQA, an environmental document must “discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans.” CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d). House concludes that the MND conflicts with multiple General Plan policies intended to protect agricultural resources and minimize the conversion of farmland.

Specifically, the General Plan encourages redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands and calls on the City to work with landowners to maintain land in agricultural production where feasible. (Ex. C, p. 3.) Additionally, as House explains, the MND does not evaluate whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures could further the General Plan’s policies to reduce the permanent loss of productive agriculture. (Ex. C, p. 3.) Instead, it merely concludes no mitigation is required because of the General Plan’s anticipation of future urban development. (Id.) By selectively relying on the General Plan’s land use designation while ignoring its agricultural resource policies, the MND fails to provide the adequate analysis required under CEQA.

IV. An EIR is Required to Adequately Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit D. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood provides substantial evidence that the MND failed to accurately characterize the Project’s environmental setting, failed to adequately analyze significant impacts to wildlife, failed to provide adequate mitigation measures, and failed to properly respond to comments on biological resources. As a result, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant impacts to biological resources.

A. The MND fails to accurately characterize the Project’s environmental setting SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

Dr. Smallwood’s associate Noriko Smallwood conducted surveys of the Project site by walking the site’s perimeters where accessible, scanning for wildlife with binoculars, and utilizing an acoustic bat detector. (Ex. D, p. 2.) On March 28, 2026, she conducted a diurnal survey for 2.57 hours (Id.) On March 29, 2026, she conducted a diurnal survey for 0.58 hours and a nocturnal survey for 2.58 hours. During her surveys, Ms. Smallwood observed 42 species of vertebrate wildlife utilizing the Project site, seven of which are special-status species including Tricolored blackbird, Canyon Bat, Cooper’s Hawk, and California Gull, among others. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Combined with the species identified during the biological studies prepared for the Project, at least four special-status species depend on the Project site as habitat. (Id. at pp. 15-

16.)
Dr. Smallwood’s found that the site hosted multiple special-status species, including the tricolored blackbird, which is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.

Dr. Smallwood also explains that the MND states that “[n]o candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are expected to occur on the Proposed Project Site,” despite the underlying biological report documenting four special-status species and Dr. Smallwood’s surveys identifying additional special-status species utilizing the site. (Ex. D, pp. 15-16.) Given Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that the MND failed to accurately characterize the environmental setting, including the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species, the Project’s description of the environmental setting is insufficient. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze this discrepancy and it’s impacts on those special-status species.

B. The MND fails to adequately analyze the project’s impacts on wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife-vehicle collisions, and cumulative impacts.

Based on Ms. Smallwood’s observations at the Project site and Dr. Smallwood’s extensive knowledge on wildlife habitat, wildlife movement, and conservation of special-status species, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the MND failed to adequately address and mitigate numerous significant impacts to biological resources, including significant habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, wildlife-vehicle collisions, and cumulative impacts. (Ex. D, pp. 29-40.) Accordingly, there is a fair argument that there will be significant impacts to biological resources, and the City must prepare and circulate an EIR.

1. Habitat loss and lost reproductive capacity.

Dr. Smallwood determined that the Project will adversely impact the 55 species of vertebrate wildlife observed on the Project site. (Ex. D, p. 29.) However, the extent to which this habitat loss will impact avian nest sites was not analyzed in the MND. The loss of habitat would lead to a loss of nesting sites for birds, which will result in lost reproductive capacity. (Id. at 30.) SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in “the loss of 145 nest sites and 202 nest attempts per year” (Id.) The loss of nests, in turn, would result in the loss of 659 birds each year (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concludes “The loss of 659 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most is 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.” (Id. at 31.) The loss of 659 birds every year is a significant impact that requires analysis and mitigation through an EIR.

2. Wildlife-vehicle Collisions
Dr. Smallwood determined that the Project would result in significant wildlife mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions. He notes that “Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic” (Ex. D, p. 31.) The Project is predicted to generate 4,772,698 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trucks and autos. Dr. Smallwood predicts that Project-generated traffic from this site would amount to about 6,101 vertebrate wildlife fatalities every year. (Id. at 33.) Though 6,101 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year is significant, the MND fails to analyze this potential impact or seek to mitigate it. Dr. Smallwood concludes that mitigation measures to “improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible” and that the EIR needs to analyze their feasibility with the Project. (Id. at 35.) Accordingly, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement, and those impacts need to be studied and mitigated in an EIR.

3. Cumulative Impacts
Finally, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the EIR utilized a flawed cumulative impacts analysis. He notes that the EIR “relies on the notion that mitigation measures to reduce direct and indirect project impacts also reduce the projects contributions to cumulative impacts to less than significant” which is “inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts” because the Project can still “incrementally contribute to the effects of other projects for a significant cumulative impact.” (Ex. D, p. 34.)
Indeed, a cumulative impact determination should be based on an analysis of the Project’s incremental effects “viewed in connected with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (14 CCR § §15065(a)(3).) However, the EIR does not address any other past, present, or future projects. As noted by Dr. Smallwood, the EIR concludes that the proposed mitigation measures reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant with no discussion of other projects. (Ex. D, p. 34.) This flawed method is directly SAFER Comments on Chacon Farms MND
July 3, 2026

counter to CEQA’s required analysis of cumulative impacts. Rather than evaluating the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the MND simply concludes that mitigation measures reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. (Id.) As Dr. Smallwood explains, this reasoning is inconsistent with CEQA’s cumulative impacts requirement because it fails to evaluate whether the Project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable. (Id.) Accordingly, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the MND fails to adequately analyze cumulative biological impacts, requiring the preparing of an EIR.

C. The MND Fails to Adopt or Evaluate Feasible Mitigation Measures for Significant Biological Impacts
CEQA requires adoption of all feasible mitigation measures capable of substantially lessening potentially significant impacts. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the MND fails to satisfy that requirement because it does not evaluate feasible and available mitigation measures related to habitat loss, wildlife-vehicle collisions, impacts to special-status species, and cumulative impacts. (Ex. D, pp. 35-40.) Instead, the MND relies on generalized mitigation measures that do not address the magnitude of the Project’s anticipated impacts. (Id.) Accordingly, the MND fails to demonstrate that the Project’s impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level, requiring the preparation of an EIR.

CONCLUSION
There is substantial evidence of a fair argument that this Project will have significant impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, indoor air quality, agricultural resources, and biological resources. Accordingly, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from approving the Project until an EIR is created to adequately analyze and mitigate the impacts raised in this comment.

Thank you for your attention to these comments.

Sincerely,
Aleja Cretcher
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A
2219 Main Street, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
April 8, 2026
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
Subject: Comments on the Chacon Farms Project (SCH No. 2025101241) Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the October 2025 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Chacon Farms Project (“Project”) located in the City of San Jacinto (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 419 single family residential lots on the 75.7-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas 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 greenhouse gas 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, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (“AQ Study”) as Appendix A-1 to the IS/MND, we identified several model inputs related to Project construction that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that provides a more detailed evaluation of the impact that construction and operation of 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 “Chacon Farms Detailed Report” model includes 817,050-SF and 63.4 acres of “Single Family Housing” (see screenshot below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 75).
2 While the IS/MND proposes to develop 419 single family residential lots, the IS/MND does not specify the square footage of the proposed building area. The IS/MND states:
“The Project involves subdividing 75.7 gross acres into 419 single family residential lots, four open space lots (Tentative Tract Map 39076), as shown on Figure 4: Site Plan Schematic, TTM 30926. The lots generally range in size from 4,500 square feet (SF) to 6,500 SF as shown in Appendix I: Planned Development Permit” (p. 16-17).

As indicated above, the IS/MND only includes the range in square footage for the proposed residential lots. The residential square footage included in the model is thus unsupported and may be underestimated. Additionally, the model includes only 63.4 acres of total land use while the IS/MND indicates that the Project site encompasses 75.7 acres (p. 16-17). The modeled lot acreage is therefore underestimated by approximately 12.3 acres.1
This 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.2 Additionally, the lot acreage of the proposed Project is used to assign construction default data such as grading, site preparation, and off-road equipment lists.3 By potentially underestimating the size of the proposed housing and the acreage of the Project site, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Amount of Required Demolition
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Chacon Farms Detailed Report” model includes 28,500-SF of demolition debris (see screenshot below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 135).

Regarding the existing land uses, the IS/MND states:
1 Calculated: (75.7 proposed lot acreage) – (64.4 acres modeled of “Single Family Housing” space) = 12.3 underestimated lot acreage. 2 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 30. 3 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 30, 35. 3 “The Project Site is currently occupied by Chacon Farms and Bruno Ranches agricultural operations. Two single-family residential uses occupied by caretakers are also located on the Proposed Project Site” (p. 10).

However, the IS/MND fails to further specify the total square footage associated with the existing land uses that need to be demolished. The amount of demolition material inputted into the model may thus be underestimated and we cannot verify that only 28,500-SF would be demolished during Project construction.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as demolition material is used to calculate emissions associated with fugitive dust, debris removal, as well as exhaust from hauling trucks traveling to and from the Project site.4 By including an unsubstantiated amount of demolition, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

All-Electric Building Design Should Be Incorporated as Mitigation Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that “Chacon Farms Detailed Report” model includes changes to the default number of hearths and energy use values (see screenshot below) (Appendix A-1, pp. 147).

As previously stated, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 The justifications provided for these changes are:
“No woodstoves” and the “Project will be all electric” (Appendix A-1, pp. 147).

While the justification for the changes to hearths only references woodstoves—whose removal is substantiated pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 445—we take issue with the apparent removal of gas-powered hearths from the model. In regard to the Project’s natural gas usage, the IS/MND states that “[t]he Project will be 100 percent electric and will not require natural gas” (p. 70).

However, the assumption that the Project will be all-electric in the model remains unsupported until the IS/MND incorporates an all-electric building design as mitigation. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
4 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 38. 5 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 13, 14. 4 “While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”6

As demonstrated above, PDFs that are not formally included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Until an all-electric Project design is incorporated as a formal mitigation measure, we cannot fully guarantee that it would be implemented on the Project site and the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
7 Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 5,354 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) or 3.957 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”) (see excerpt below) (p. 87, Table 22).
6 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, 2025, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/downloadtp.cfm?file=CEQA+Mitigation_2025+Update.pdf&token=6DCD87B3-CE3F-C7FA159B26B39185CF33, p. 6, (membership required). 7 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, 2025, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/downloadtp.cfm?file=CEQA+Mitigation_2025+Update.pdf&token=6DCD87B3-CE3F-C7FA159B26B39185CF33, p. 6, (membership required). 5 The IS/MND thus concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact, stating:
“The Project would be below the 2027 interpolated SCAQMD threshold of 3.96 metric tons of CO2e per service population, and therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact” (p. 87).

However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is unsupported for two reasons.

First, the use of a 2027 interpolated threshold is not supported by any relevant local or state guidance and therefore lacks substantial evidence as required under CEQA. The SCAQMD provides service population efficiency thresholds of 4.8- and 3.0-MT CO₂e/SP/year for years 2020 and 2035, respectively.
8 The IS/MND, however, interpolates between these two benchmarks to derive a Projectspecific threshold for the Project’s operational year, stating:
“The Project was compared to the Tier 4 per service population threshold, interpolated for opening year 2027 at 3.96 MTCO2e per year per service population” (p. 86).

The IS/MND’s creation of its own 2027 threshold is wholly unsubstantiated, as neither SCAQMD guidance nor any identified state-level guidance recommends, endorses, or even discusses the interpolation of thresholds between benchmark years. Absent such support, the use of the 3.96 MT 8 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 6 CO₂e/SP/year threshold is incorrect and the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Second, the difference between the Project’s estimated emissions of 3.957 MT CO₂e/SP/year and the asserted threshold of 3.96 MT CO₂e/SP/year is only 0.003 MT CO₂e/SP/year, which is not only negligible but also exceeds the precision of CalEEMod itself. CalEEMod reports GHG emissions estimates with a maximum of 2 decimal points and any value carried to a third decimal place is not supported by the model calculations.

Moreover, the SCAQMD service population efficiency thresholds themselves are expressed using two significant figures. Accordingly, the Project’s estimated emissions should be rounded and compared using the same level of precision as the comparable thresholds. Applying greater precision than the applicable threshold is methodologically improper. Thus, when using two significant figures (in this case rounding to one decimal place), the Project’s estimated emissions equal 4.0 MT CO₂e/SP/year, exceeding the SCAQMD 2035 threshold as well as the unsupported 2027 interpolated threshold (see table below).

IS/MND Service Population Efficiency Values
Proposed Project GHG Emissions
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 4.0
2027 Interpolated Threshold 4.0*
SCAQMD 2035 Threshold 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
* The IS/MND’s interpolated 2027 threshold of 3.96 rounded to two significant figures.

As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year and the 2027 interpolated threshold of 3.96 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion is unsupported. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels.

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 GHG impacts that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the GHG emissions associated with the Project, we recommend several mitigation measures as listed below. The Southern California Association of Governments’ Certified Final Program 7 Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024 recommends the following Project-level greenhouse gas quality mitigation measures: 9
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including:
o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems beyond Title 24 minimum requirements. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight.
o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment.
o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices.
o Incorporate passive solar design.
o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Use no gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment.
o Install alternative fuel (i.e., electric, hydrogen-fueled, etc.) vehicle charging and fueling stations.
o Encourage projects to reduce natural gas infrastructure in buildings and/or reduce the use of natural gas appliances, with exceptions for limited uses. • Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies. o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles. o Improve or increase access to transit.
o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, day care, and medical care.
o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network. o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks or transit service. o Provide traffic calming measures.
o Limit or eliminate park supply.
o Provide parking cash-out programs.
o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program. • Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network.
• Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations. 9 “Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal 2024.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/program-environmental-impact-report-0. 8 • Adopt employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, provide end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs. • Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles. • Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
• Implement preferential parking permit program.
• Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules. • Implement commute trip reduction marketing.
• Price workplace parking.

We want to emphasize that projects should prioritize the use of on-site renewable energy to reduce GHG emissions. In particular, the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems is an effective strategy to reduce project-related emissions and is consistent with recommendations in CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan.
10 CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan further recommends that new residential projects “[use] all-electric appliances without any natural gas connections and [do] not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking” in order to reduce Project-related GHG emissions. 11 Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines 15126.4 (c)(3) include “[o]ffsite measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions” as an option for GHG mitigation. 12 An example of
this was in the case of the Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project, where off-site reduction measures in the neighboring communities were recommended.13 We recommend consideration of local carbon offset programs to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts as a measure of last result.

Provided above are several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-related GHG emissions.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.
10 “2022 Scoping Plan For Achieving Carbon Neutrality” CARB, November 2022, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf, Appendix D, p. 26. 11 “2022 Scoping Plan For Achieving Carbon Neutrality” CARB, November 2022, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf, Appendix D, p. 23, Table

3. 12 “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.” CEQA Guidelines, May 2024, available at:
https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resourcesagency/chapter-3-guidelines-for-implementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-9-contents-ofenvironmental-impact-reports/section-151264-consideration-and-discussion-of-mitigation-measures-proposed-tominimize-significant-effects. 13 “Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21168.6.7.” 2023, available at: https://casetext.com/statute/californiacodes/california-public-resources-code/division-13-environmental-quality/chapter-6-limitations/section-2116867- oakland-sports-and-mixed-use-project-conditions-for-approval-certification-of-project-for-streamlining. 9 An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated GHG analysis 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,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1 2219 Main Street, Suite 600
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 A
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
2219 Main Street, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations:

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

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

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

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Grants Awarded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT B

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: March 29, 2026
To: Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4946)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. 3 of 19
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019) and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.

This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA, the buildings consist of residential buildings spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks 4 of 19
resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.

This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 219 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials 5 of 19
will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings 6 of 19
and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate 7 of 19
testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 8 of 19

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝑖𝑛 =
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
9 of 19
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a 10 of 19
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., North Cawston Avenue, West Esplanade Avenue, 7th Street, etc.). Thus, the Project is located in a sound impacted area.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report – Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA (EPC Environmental, 2025) states in Table 31 that the modeled existing traffic noise levels with the Project range from 67.5 to 69.8 dBA CNEL without a wall and 61.1 to 64.9 dBA CNEL with a wall. These modeled ambient noise estimates were based upon measurements made at just two locations over 15-minute periods.

In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a minimum of a one-week period and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
11 of 19
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA (EPC Environmental, 2025), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 219 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic.

An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. at least MERV 13, or possibly MERV 14 or 15 depending on the results of the Project ambient PM2.5 concentrations) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
12 of 19
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not ensure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and 13 of 19
exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
Caja Environmental Services, 2025. City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Categorical Exemption\: 5424 Carlton Way Project, Environmental Case Number: ENV2024-915-CE California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 14 of 19
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPC Environmental. 2025. Draft Environmental Impact Report – Chacon Farms Project, San Jacinto, CA.
15 of 19
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
17 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Singer et. al., 2020 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.3 µg/m3(18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTestingandEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,Version1.1, 2017, California Department ofPublic Health, 18 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates, I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2(0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2(1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2(2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 19 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to ensure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

EXHIBIT C
1105 Kennedy Place, Suite 1
Davis, California 95616
530-753-3361
April 17, 2026 (via electronic mail)
To: Ms. Aleja Cretcher and Mr. Richard
Drury
From: Greg and Henry House
Lozeau Drury House Agricultural Consultants
[email protected], richard@lozeau[email protected], [email protected] Re: Expert review of Memorandum of Negative Declaration of Chacon Farms Project: Tentative Tract Map No. 39076 PROJ23-0029; San Jacinto, California, with respect to agricultural matters
Dear Ms. Cretcher and Mr. Drury:

At your request, we have reviewed the Negative Declaration (hereinafter, MND) of the City of San Jacinto for the Chacon Farms Project: Tentative Tract Map No. 39076, PROJ23-0029; dated October 20, 2025—hereinafter, the New Gen Project— to comment on agricultural resources in our capacity as agriculture experts.

We, House Agricultural Consultants (hereinafter, HAC), are an agricultural-consulting firm that has analyzed agricultural impacts of numerous similar development projects over a period of many years. These are our first comments on this project. A description of our qualifications as consultants follows as an appendix to this memorandum.

In brief, we comment on three problematic aspects of the MND that cause it to fail to prove its negative declaration finding specifically related to agricultural resources. The MND:— 1) The MND does not comply with CEQA requirements to analyze impacts on agricultural resources. Discussed under 1, below.
2) The MND fails to comply with the general-plan policies of the City of San Jacinto. Discussed under 2, below.
1 The MND agricultural-resource analysis fails to comply with CEQA requirements

1.1 Conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Item a in the CEQA checklist for impacts to agricultural resources requires that the responsible agency determine whether the project would “Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use”.

In making a “Less Than Significant” impact finding for item a above the MND has failed to correctly analyze the project’s impact by a curious form of circular reasoning.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 2 In the Discussion portion of section 4.2.1, “Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact Analysis”, the MND states that the proposed project site is located on Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, based on the city’s own review of the California Important Farmland Finder Map, prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), (FMMP 2023).

The MND then observes that the San Jacinto General Plan Land Use Map does not designate lands specifically for agricultural use, but instead mostly designates them for a mix of residential and non-residential development, and that this “could”, and is expected to “result in the conversion of many of these Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance areas to urban uses.” Following, this, the MND concedes that the project actually would convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site to non-agricultural uses.

The defective reasoning provided by the MND is that because the city’ general plan anticipates that the development of this property will convert the farmland to urban use: “Therefore, impacts related to conversion of farmland would be less-than significant, and no mitigation is required.” But this is a mere assertion of the part of the MND, and provides no analysis of the conversion impact; and, thus, the MND has failed to address item a of the CEQA checklist.

The MND mistakenly relies on the idea that, while the project site is Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, its conversion is somehow no longer significant because agricultural use is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, which designates an urban use for this property.

This wishful thinking on the part of the MND fails to recognize that California State law supersedes local planning documents and that therefore as a state statute, CEQA takes precedence over local planning in determining the level of significance. The City’s plans do not remove the requirement to find a Potentially Significant Impact in this situation. As a state-mandated environmental law, CEQA requires that all discretionary projects, including local planning decisions, identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. The MND has stated the project will convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, and this is a Potentially Significant Impact.

1.2 The MND fails to consider cumulative impacts. Item e of the CEQA checklist for Agricultural Resource environmental impacts requires analysis of whether the project would Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? In its discussion of this requirement the MND again confirms that the proposed project site is located on Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Again the MND offers a insular argument: “The construction and operation of the Project would be confined to the Project footprint” and therefore “would not cause offsite conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agriculture or non-forest uses”.

Again there is no analysis of such impacts in this MND, just a bald assertion. To comply with CEQA, the MND must prepare an analysis that considers the cumulative impact of this project, which necessarily requires the study of other urban development in the area, considering such effects as total amount of farmland lost, farmland conversion trends, and what would be a significant lost amount and a significant loss trend to which this project contributes.

1.3 Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project has at hand a well-established mitigation tool to turn a potentially significant impact into a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This is to require the purchase of an agricultural-conservation easement (ACE) on similar= area and -quality farmland (that is, Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance) elsewhere.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 3 The standard method of mitigation accepted through legal precedent in California is through the purchase of an agricultural-conservation easement. The outline of such an easement is available from the California Department of Conservation as a “model easement” which can be fitted to particular circumstances.
2 The MND fails to comply with the general-plan policies of the City of San Jacinto
San Jacinto’s general plan makes a number of policy statements relating to agriculture; the MND fails to comply with these policies. In summary:—

1.) GP policy to address agriculture, in compliance with state law.— In section LU-2, “Overview”, the general plan states: “State law requires the Land Use Element to address proposed general distribution, general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture . . . .”
By ignoring the Potential Significant Impact (as defined by CEQA) of converting Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance of this project, the MND has failed to address the uses of the land for agriculture.
2) GP policy to prioritize alternatives to impacting agriculture.— In Section LU-2e, the general plan states as a policy “Give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands and other sensitive resources.” The MND has failed to consider project alternatives such as redevelopment and infill which would reduce development pressure on agricultural lands such as the proposed project site, and therefore fails to comply with the general plan of the City of San Jacinto. 3) GP policy to maintain agricultural feasibility.— In section LU-2f, the general plan states as a policy: “Work with property owners and agricultural operations interested in retaining agricultural land to identify feasible ways to maintain the land in agricultural production.” By not making a finding of less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated that would establish an ACE or utilize some other acceptable method of mitigation that retains agricultural land or maintains land in agricultural production, the MND has failed to comply with the City of San Jacinto’s general plan..
3 Closing
This concludes our current brief review of the MND of the New Gen Project. A description of our professional qualifications is found in the appendix that follows.

Sincerely,
Henry House Gregory A. House
4 Qualifications of House Agricultural Consultants

4.1 Gregory A. House. Agricultural Consultant · Agronomist · Professional Farm Manager · Rural Appraiser · Farmer.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 4 Experience:—
– Agricultural consultant, 1983–present—House Agricultural Consultants, providing agricultural-science, economics, management, and appraisal services. – Farmer, 1987–present.—Growing organic apples, peaches, cherries, apricots, field and seed crops.
– Corporation secretary and consulting agronomist, 1977–1983—Hannesson, Riddle & Associates, Inc.

Professional affiliations:—
– American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers
– American Society of Agronomy
– Crop Science Society of America
– Soil Science Society of America
– California Certified Organic Farmers
– California Farm Bureau.

Accreditations:—
– Accredited Farm Manager (AFM), American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, certificate no. 501
– Certified Professional Agronomist (CPAg), American Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops. & Soils, Ltd., certificate no. 2319
– Certified Crop Advisor (CCA), American Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops. & Soils, Ltd.

N.B.—These credentials have continuing-education requirements with which I am in compliance.

Education:—
– B.S., Crop Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1975, with Honors – Numerous courses from the University of California Extension in agricultural economics, crop management, real estate, & hazardous waste management
– Cornell University Certificate Program, Implementing Good Agricultural Practices: A Key to Produce Safety
– Courses of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers: Principles of Rural Appraisal · Advanced Rural Appraisal · Eminent Domain · Report Writing School · Economics of Farm Management · Principles of Farm Management · Standards and Ethics · Permanent Plantings Seminar · Standards and Ethics for Farm Managers · ASFMRA Code of Ethics National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Courses of the Appraisal Institute: Basic Valuation Procedures · Real Estate Statistics and Valuation Modeling · Advanced Income Capitalization · Valuation of Conservation Easements Certificate Program · Condemnation Appraising: Principles and Applications · Appraising the Appraisal · How Tenants Create or Destroy Value: Leasehold Valuation and Its Impact on Value. – Former Accredited Rural Appraiser (ARA), American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, certificate no. 749 (retired).

Expert-witness court testimony:—
– Superior Court Qualified Expert Witness in the following California counties: Alameda, Colusa, Kern, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Ventura, Yolo – United States Tax Court qualified expert witness
– United States Bankruptcy Court qualified expert witness.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 5 A comprehensive listing of Mr. House’s depositions and trial appearances is available upon request. The list currently numbers seventy-two matters in which Mr. House gave sworn testimony (either deposition, trial or hearing appearance, or both), including thirty-two trial appearances.

Awards:—
– CCOF Presidential Award, California Certified Organic Farmers, February, 2001. – Meritorious Service in Communications, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, November 2004. – H.E. Buck Stalcup Excellence in Education Award, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, October, 2011.

Appointments & activities:—
– Adjunct Lecturer, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, current; Courses ARE 140 Farm Management; ARE 145 Appraisal of Farms & Rural Resources, 2015–2021.
– Instructor, Principles of Farm Management, an Internet course of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1996–2007.
– President, California Chapter American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers 1994–1995; Secretary–Treasurer, 1984–1990.
– Board of Directors, Yolo Land Trust, 1993–2001.
– Board of Directors, American Red Cross, Yolo County Chapter 1987–1989. – Member, Yolo County Right to Farm Grievance Committee 1992–1995. – Vice Chairman, Management Education Committee, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1998–2000 (committee member since 1986). – Yolo County LAFCo Agricultural Forum LESA subcommittee, 1999. – California Certified Organic Farmers: Treasurer of the Board of Directors, 1998–2003; Executive Director, 1999–2000; Member of the Finance Committee, 1998–current. – CCOF Foundation Going Organic Program, Management Team member, 2006–2012. – USDA Organic Grant Panel member, Washington, DC, 2002. – City of Davis Open Space and Habitat Commission, 2006–2016, Chairman, 2007–2009. – Member, Fruit Orchard Technical Advisory Group, Filoli Gardens, Woodside, California. – Member, Organic and Sustainable Agriculture Program Steering Committee, University of California Cooperative Extension, Yolo and Solano Counties, California, 2008–2013. – Member, Solano County Right to Farm Grievance Committee 2022–present.

Speaking engagements:—
– Guest lecturer, University of Florida at Gainesville–Vegetable Crops Department. Seminar on transition to organic agriculture, November 1994.
– Featured program speaker, 1995 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture on economics of organic-apple production, Asilomar, California, 1995.
– Guest speaker, multiple events of Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Presentations on farm management and agricultural economics, 1996 and 1997. – Instructor, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. Course “M-12”, Standards and Ethics for Professional Farm Managers, March 1997. – Guest speaker, American Horticultural Society. Lecture entitled Challenges of Organic Stone Fruit Production, Sacramento, California, July 2001.
– Organizer and presenter, Going Organic Kickoff Meetings. A program of California Certified Organic Farmers, November 2005 and December 2006.
– Master of ceremonies, annual meeting of California Certified Organic Farmers. Sacramento, California, February 2006.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 6 – Featured program speaker, 2012 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture entitled Imitating Natural Systems: Towards an Indigenous Agro-forestry, Asilomar, California, 2012. – Seminar presentation, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. Rapid Fire Seminar: What Makes for Comparable Sales in Condemnation Appraisal—Reno, Nevada, October 2013.
– Featured program speaker, 2014 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture entitled Food Safety Regulatory Compliance in Fruit Orchards, Asilomar, California, 2014.

Publications:—
– Principles of Farm Management, course “M-10”, a forty-hour professional-credit online educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. – Conservation Issues in Agriculture, a unit of course “M-25”, a fifteen-hour professional-credit online educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. – A Primer on Organic Agriculture, an article in 2006 Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, a publication of the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.
– Case Study: Using Indigenous Agroforestry Management Techniques to Support Sustainability in Production Agriculture, a paper-poster presented at Harlan II, An International Symposium on Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution and Sustainability, September 14–18, 2008, University of California–Davis.

4.2 Henry House. Economist · Rural-Property Appraiser · Agricultural-Management Expert · Farm Manager · Farmer.

Summary of professional expertise:—
– California appraiser’s license number AG-3010876 (Certified General Appraiser). This is the highest level of licensing for a real-estate appraiser and additionally qualifies Mr. House to value business interests, intellectual property, and other specialized assets and to opine on appraisals by others (the service of appraisal review).
– Management controversies regarding agricultural business; standard of care. – Agricultural economics and business lost profits; econometric controversies. – Value of lost crops, emblements, and foodstuff inventory. – Farm management: good farming practices in row crops and orchards, such as almonds and walnuts.
– Livestock management: carrying capacity of land, range management, standard of care for control of grazing animals, fencing.
– Right-to-farm issues, e.g., vehicle–agriculture, vehicle–livestock conflicts in agricultural districts, feasibility of agriculture on urban-proximate lands, spraying drift. – Appraisal: valuation in disputes concerning real property, valuation of agricultural and rural land, valuation of valuation of agricultural personal property (e.g., chattel), valuation of agricultural-commercial facilities (e.g., aquaculture), valuation of development rights, assessed-value analysis for assessment appeal.
– Condemnation: valuation services for this appraisal specialty, including severance damages, in support of eminent-domain litigation.
– Conservation projects: Mr. House has assisted numerous land trusts in establishing conservation easements, including The Nature Conservancy, Yolo Land Trust, Solano Land Trust, Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust, River Partners, and Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust. – Management evaluation of commercial equestrian facilities. – Management of rural property.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 7 – Statistical analysis, geographic-information-system (GIS) analysis, and software engineering (analytics).
– Expert services to litigation on the foregoing with deposition and trial-testimony experience; partial list of matters below. Qualified expert in the counties of Butte, Colusa, Kern, and Riverside.

Representative recent matters in which Mr. Henry House was retained by counsel as a forensic expert (venued in a superior court of the State of California, except as noted):— Court for the Northern District of California, March 2026.—A confidential matter involving economic losses and management controversies with respect to CBD hemp crops, venued in federal court.

County of Santa Clara, March 2026.—Topic: agricultural economics · almonds · private equity.

Park Capital Management, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Orchard Yield Fund I, LP, plaintiff, v. Satya Chillara, Rajs Funds LLC, Sunil Dhar, et al., defendants, and Orchard Yield Fund I, LP, nominal defendant (case no. 22CV402044). A controversy over the profitability of almond orchards developed with private-equity funding in Fresno County in 2016. Scope included a study of the agricultural economics of almonds from the 2010s to present as background to assist the court in understanding appropriate investors’ expectations from a private-equity investment in almond orchards made in 2016. Mr. House’s opinions were submitted to the court in a narrative report.

County of Hamilton, State of Ohio, January 2026.—Topic: agricultural lost profits · pistachios · private equity · racketeering. Kingman 1139 Investment Partners LLC v. Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq., Jonathan R. Deters, Esq., and Markovits, Stock & Demarco LLC. A matter of legal malpractice claimed regarding the client’s prior representation in a matter concerning an Arizona pistachio orchard, financed by private equity, whose investment was lost to a racket. Scope included feasibility of the pistachio-orchard development, investors’ expectations in the private-equity investment as of 2016, and economic damages from the loss of the investment in the project. Mr. House’s opinions were submitted to the court in a narrative expert report.

County of Barron, State of Wisconsin, December 2025.—Topic: agricultural economics · foodstuff valuation · cheese. Damages in Dairy Pride, et al. v. Comstock Creamery, et al. A matter of the loss of an warehouse of organic white-cheddar cheese, principally amounting to chattel value of the wholesale inventory, but also including a component of lost profits from a retail cheese store.

Mr. House’s opinions were submitted to the court in a narrative expert report.

County of Tulare, October 2025.—Topic: econometrics · agricultural irrigation · evapotranspiration · water rights · California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Friant Water Authority v. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (case no. VCU306343). A matter of claimed economic damages due to the defendant’s method of charging and accounting for groundwater drawn from a regulated basis by its members, primarily farms growing diverse crops. Scope included discounted present valuation of a revenue-sharing agreement having a substantially greater nominal value, informed by expertise in econometrics and farm management.

County of Yellowstone, State of Montana, September 2025.—Topic: standard of care for crop farming · fire safety · wheat. Colin Funk v. Stephen Becker and Becker Farming (case no. DV56-2024-0001290-NE in Montana’s Thirteenth Judicial District). A matter of fire damage to ruralresidential land near Billings, Montana. The plaintiff retained and designated Mr. House to analyze the defendants’ standard of care in performing harvest operations on a wheat field where a fire originated. To our understanding, Mr. House’s opinions, which were submitted to the court in a written report, were of evidentiary relevance to the plaintiff’s legal theory of negligence by the defendants.

County of Sacramento, September 2025.—Topic: farming standard of care · agricultural dust · walnuts. Gerald Larson, et al. v. Robert Larson, et al. (case no. 34-2021-00294930, consolidated with 34-2021-00311331 and 34-2022-00327390). An auto-accident case wherein dust allegedly originating from some defendants’ walnut orchard obscured visibility on a public road, contributing to Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 8 an accident with multiple vehicles involved. Mr. House was retained and designated to review the location of the incident, the crops and nature of agriculture in the area, and the standard of care used by the farming defendants, reasonableness of their actions, and their process for conducting agricultural operations, opining on the same and in rebuttal of other experts.

County of Butte, June 2025.—Topic: agricultural lost profits · olives. Zih Jun Wang v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al. A case regarding an olive grove in Butte County, where portion of the trees were destroyed by a utility company, in substantial excess of the utility’s real-property rights under its easement to undertake fire-prevention activities. Mr. House opined on the economic impact of the trees’ destruction, including cost of restoration, timeline to return to productive capacity, and lost profits, thereby assisting the client to obtain a settlement.

County of Wake, State of North Carolina, November 2024.—Topic: farm management, standard of care for labor contracting. Carlos Moreno, et al. v. Florida Orange Gold, LLC, José Javier Gutierrez, Gilberto Gutierrez, and Howell Farming Co., Inc. Mr. House was retained and designated for expertise on the client’s standard of care in hiring contract labor in Wayne County, North Carolina. Plaintiff Moreno suffered a workplace injury, alleged to have been caused by heat sickness, while weeding watermelons as a contract laborer (as an employee of Florida Orange Gold) on the farmland of client Howell Farming Co. (defendant); the plaintiffs’ cause of action against Howell was negligence. Mr. House opined on several controverted factual elements of the allegation of negligence, including the division of responsibility for workers’ safety between farm-labor contractor (employer) and farmer hiring contract labor (nonemployer owner of the crop and possessor of the farmland), customary and accepted practices to manage risk of heat illness from hot weather, and whether summertime weeding in eastern North Carolina meets the characteristics of an “inherently dangerous activity” as defined by North Carolina law.

County of Sacramento, July 2024.—Topic: real-estate costs to cure · appraisal · conspiracy.— Robert Williams and Christina Williams v. Dynamic Asset Solutions, LLC, Prato Real Estate, Inc., Bricker Construction, Inc., and Finley Home Services, Inc., et al. Mr. House was retained by Williams and opined in deposition on the fair market value of the subject property, a luxury home, in as-sold condition, its fair market value as if it had not suffered from damage discovered by buyer, and the market cost of repairs. Additional details on this matter are found in Mr. House’s separately provided testimony list.

County of Los Angeles, March 2024.—Topic: real-estate appraisal. JP’s Nevada Trust v. 2Bulls Conservation Ventures et al. Mr. House was retained by JP’s Nevada Trust and opined on valuation methodology and opined the fair market value of three ranch properties at the times of three controverted transactions in service of the plaintiff in a dispute in which the buyer (plaintiff) alleged conspiracy to defraud and a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Additional details on this matter are found in Mr. House’s separately provided testimony list.

County of Nevada, November 2023.—Topic: lost profits. Andrew Hainsworth, et al. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company. A fire loss on a property in Rough and Ready. Mr. House was retained by Hainsworth and subsequently opined written findings regarding the plaintiff’s lost profits from licensed Cannabis production in rural Nevada County, including an opinion on the market value of Nevada County-grown Cannabis relative to the market in aggregate.

County of Franklin, State of Washington, September 2023–June 2024.—Topic: real-estate appraisal. Ice Harbor Properties, LLC and Certain Underwriters Subscribing to Certificate No. XLS0342717 v. Agri Control Technologies, Inc. d.b.a. BTU Ventilation and Parrish Stakkeland (case no. 20-2-50118-11, Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Franklin). A dispute over the compensation due by the defendants for the fire loss of the plaintiff’s real property, a warehouse specialized for climate-controlled bulk storage of potatoes and onions. The plaintiffs retained and designated Mr. House as a rebuttal witness to opine on the fair market value of the lost building, the market for similar buildings, and other experts’ opinions.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 9 County of Tulare, July 2023.—Topic: livestock economics · real-estate appraisal. Jones, et al. v. Pleasant Valley Canal Company, et al. (case no. VCU274417). A dispute over a cattle-ranching and hay-growing operation which the plaintiffs alleged had been damaged by the operation of a canal crossing the plaintiffs’ property. The scope for which Mr. House was retained and designated by the defendants included analyzing the plaintiffs’ alleged diminution of value of real estate, analyzing the plaintiffs’ alleged economic loss from death of cattle, and opining on the water company’s standard of care in maintenance of its canal. Additionally, I assisted retaining counsel to engage an expert in veterinary pathology.

County of Minidoka, State of Idaho, March–August 2023.—Topic: standard of care for livestock fencing. Michael O. Ottley v. Hanssen et al. (case no. CV34-21-00168, District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho). An auto-accident case wherein the defendants’ cattle had escaped onto a public road and been struck by the plaintiff in rural Minidoka County, Idaho.

The defendants retained and designated Mr. House to analyze the defendants’ standard of care in managing the cattle, to opine on the quality of the defendants’ fencing in comparison to locally accepted standards of adequacy, and for rebuttal of the plaintiff’s fencing expert.

County of Imperial, November 2022–February 2024.—Topic: agricultural economics · hay.

Freddi Abatti et al. v. James Davis, et al. (case no. ECU002597). The defendants retained and designated Mr. House to evaluate the lost profits in hay crops in Imperial County resulting from a fire.

County of Merced, September 2022–January 2024.—Topic: agricultural economics · lost profits · almonds. Athwal Investments et al. v. San Luis Pump Co. et al. (case no. 20CV03787). A matter of almond trees in Merced County allegedly damaged consequent to lack of irrigation water. Scope included analysis of the economic lost profits from orchard trees lost and replanted as well as from lost yield in service of two defendants.

See also.—Mr. House’s separately provided listing of testimonies lists additional matters.

Partial list of management-consulting assignments:—
– Numerous consulting assignments for Leland Stanford Junior University on the management of its agricultural lands, which feature cattle, horses, and vegetable crops. Topics addressed have included livestock standard of care, carrying capacity of lands, safety of animals, safety of structures, and management of drainage and water quality. – Consulting farm management for John and Marie Cronin Trust B, a landowner near Rio Vista, California. Lands were utilized for cattle grazing. – Numerous appraisal assignments of farmland and rangeland properties utilized for crops and livestock (cattle, sheep, and aquaculture).
– A list of additional management-consulting clients served available on request.

Experience:—
Agricultural consultant, appraiser, consulting agricultural economist.— House Agricultural Consultants, providing agricultural science, economics, management, and appraisal services. 2000–present.

Farmer.— Coco Ranch, a family farm growing organic apples, peaches, cherries, and field crops and raising sheep, poultry, and goats. 2000–present.

Education:—
– B.S., “Natural History”, University of California, Davis, 1999, with Honors. Coursework in agronomy, botany, ecology, entomology, geology, hydrology, nematology, plant pathology, soil biology, sustainable agriculture, statistics, and wildlife biology. – Numerous courses of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA) regarding farm management, agricultural consulting, and appraisal. Recently completed: Livestock Ranch Seminar (February 15, 2024) and Appraisal of Water Rights Seminar (March 8, 2024), both in ASFMRA’s appraisal-education series.

Memorandum · April 17, 2026 · On Chacon Farms in Re Agriculture Matters 10 – Numerous courses of the Appraisal Institute regarding real-estate appraisal. – Courses from Savory Institute regarding livestock management.

Appointments & activities:—
– Lecturer–instructor, Department of Agricultural & Managerial Economics, University of California–Davis, 2015–present. – 2026 cohort of Prohuman Foundation’s Prohuman Ambassador Program. The Prohuman Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that exists to promote the foundational truth that every person is a unique individual united by our shared humanity. – Member, Solano County Farm Bureau.
– Member, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. – Board of Directors, Davis Media Access, Davis, California, 2014–2017. – Board of Directors, Davis Farmers Market Association, 2001–2003.

Publications & speaking engagements:—
– Course ARE 140, “Farm Management”, and are 145, “Appraisal of Farms & Rural Resources”, University of California–Davis, 2015–present.
– Principles of Farm Management, Course M-10, a 40-hour professional credit Internet educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1999–2023. – Educational speaker at the annual meeting of the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, November 19, 2021, Coalinga, California. Topic: valuation of conservation easements.

EXHIBIT D
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Yaneli Hernandez, Senior Planner
Planning and Building Division
595 South San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, CA 92583 13 April 2026
RE: Chacon Farms Project
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Chacon Farms Project. With a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to increase allowed housing density, the project would add 419 singlefamily residential units on 75.7 acres at the northwest corner of W Esplande Ave and Cawston Ave in San Jacinto, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), supported by a biological technical report prepared by Psomas (2024), 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 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 fortyone 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 Question IV(a) asks specifically whether the project would adversely affect special-status species. However, this narrowly focused question is part of a larger policy goal of CEQA, which 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; it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities, as it must, because special-status species are inter-dependent members of ecological communities. The 2 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 provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists. 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 special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

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 a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The visit was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most specialstatus 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

2.57 hours of diurnal survey from 06:43 to 09:17 hours on 28 March 2026, and for 0.58 hours of diurnal survey and 2.58 hours of nocturnal survey from 18:30 to 21:40 hours on 29 March 2026. During daylight, Noriko walked the site 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 bat 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 site.

Conditions were sunny with 3 MPH west wind and temperatures of 58-70° F on 28 March 2026, and sunny to clear with 7 MPH south wind and temperatures of 80-69° F 3 on 24 March 2026. The site is primarily row crops with a small pond at the northeast corner (Photos 1 and 2).

Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 28 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko saw nesting red-tailed hawks (Photo 3), Cooper’s hawk and black phoebe (Photos 4 and 5), Anna’s hummingbird and California gull (Photos 6-8), killdeer and mallard (Photos 9 and 10), barn swallow (Photo 11), red-winged blackbird and tricolored blackbird (Photos 12 and 13), savannah sparrow and lesser goldfinch (Photos 14 and 15), big brown bat, canyon bat, Mexican free-tailed bat, and Yuma myotis (Photos 16-19), among other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 42 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including seven species with special status (Table 1).

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
4 Photo 3. Red-tailed hawk bringing nest material to its nest in a palm tree on the project site, 28 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 4 and 5. Cooper’s hawk (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 28 and 29 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
5 Photos 6 and 7. Anna’s hummingbird (left), and California gull (right) on the project site, 28 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 8. One of many flocks of California gulls flying over the project site, 28 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
6 Photos 9 and 10. Killdeer (left), and mallard (right) on the project site, 28 and 29 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 11. Barn swallow on the project site, 28 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
7 Photos 12 and 13. Red-winged blackbird (left), and tricolored blackbird (right) on the project site, 28 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 14 and 15. Savannah sparrow (left), and lesser goldfinch (right) on the project site, 28 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 8 Photos 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Sonograms of big brown bat
(top), canyon bat (2nd from top),
Mexican free-tailed bat (3rd
from top), and Yuma myotis
(bottom) on the project site
detected using SonoBat Live and
a Pettersson M500, 29 March
2026. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.
9 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed in 2.57 hours of diurnal survey on 28 March 2026, and in 0.58 hours of diurnal and 2.58 hours of nocturnal survey on 29 March 2026.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Baja California treefrog
Pseudacris h.
hypochondriaca Called from pond area
Cinnamon teal Spatula cyanoptera Pond, foraged
American wigeon Mareca amcericana Flew over
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Pond, foraged
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Many
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Called from pond area Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Foraged
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Many flocks flew over Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Circled just off site Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Flew low over site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Nesting in palm tree Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Foraged
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged on fringe, trees
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
American pipit Anthus rubescens
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Foraged
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Foraged
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Many
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC,
SSC1 Flew over
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
10 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
California ground
squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Just off site
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 CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; 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).

With Noriko’s finding of tricolored blackbird – a species listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act – and with her findings of several other specialstatus species, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting, which is needed to predict potential project impacts and to formulate an effective mitigation strategy.

ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, which was a relatively large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat due to the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces.

Assuming the habitat that would remain within the region is at carrying capacity for each species at issue, habitat loss translates directly to a numerical decline in the species. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar development projects 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).

However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her survey, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulation of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species 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 28 March predicts 42 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 9 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species 11 detections exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in the Inland Empire region, thus indicating the project site is relatively species-rich for the region.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visualscan surveys at the
project site on 28
and 29 March
2026. Note the
confidence interval
(orange) applies
only to the morning
survey (red line).

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 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 one survey.

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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
YAM 0.98
YPM 0.98
r
2 95% CI 2019-2025 in region
12 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 17.6 species over my first 5.15 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (5.15 hours to match the 5.15 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 30.9% 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 34 vertebrate wildlife species Noriko detected in her

5.15 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 30.9% 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 34

0.309 ⁄ = 110
species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 110 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 16 specialstatus species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 110 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 16 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. Proof of this in Noriko’s brief nocturnal survey in which she added 8 species of vertebrate wildlife to her tally, including 2 special-status species of bats. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey 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 species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

Considering the number of species – and the number of special-status species – yet to be detected, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing 13 environmental setting, which is needed to predict potential project impacts and to formulate an effective mitigation strategy.

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.

MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CEQA’s primary objectives should guide the design and conduct of CEQA review. Four of CEQA’s primary objectives are to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decisionmakers, (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects, and (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The first objective is essential to the other three, because an accurate understanding of the existing environmental setting is needed to predict impacts, provide the public with the means to meaningfully participate with issues of importance, and effectively strategize mitigation and project alternatives (Figure 3). For biological resources, essential information includes the species composition of the plant and wildlife communities, key ecological interactions, identification of ecological keystone species, determining the presence of special-status species or their habitats, and identifying risk factors that could result in significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts should the project go forward.

The public and decision-makers need to know which species are susceptible to harm potentially caused by the project and its associated activities, and which are known to be vulnerable to harm once exposed to the environmental changes brought by the project.

For these reasons, field studies are needed to identify as many of the species that occur 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
14 on the project site as reasonably feasible, and to otherwise examine the environmental conditions for their likelihood to support species that are not detected, otherwise known as “habitat assessment.” A review of species occurrence records – also known as “desktop review” – is needed to identify the other species that potentially occur on the site – a process that is also referred to as “habitat assessment.” Because habitat assessments that are based on either or both field study and desktop review are prone to uncertainty, emphasis needs to be directed to adequate field study to reduce the pool of species subjected to habitat assessment, thereby weighing the review more towards certainty. Appropriately weighted reviews are less susceptible to speculation over species occurrence likelihoods. For this reason, protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for numerous special-status species of plants and wildlife, and otherwise best scientific practices are needed to provide a reasonable likelihood of detection of species that truly occur on the project site. The negative findings of a properly conducted detection survey are the only findings that can support a determination of species absence.

Figure 3. General flow of information from its gathering through characterizing the existing environment to predicting impacts and their significance.

Even among reviews founded on the best of field studies, there is always uncertainty over some of the determinations of species occurrences. The uncertainties of habitat assessments need to be managed to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives. This means that the methodological details of both the field studies and desktop review need to be carefully and thoroughly reported, and it means that results need to be reported in context of their uncertainties. For example, the reporting of having detected 10 species in a reconnaissance survey is nearly meaningless without also reporting the numbers of species found in surveys of similar methods and effort levels, and the reporting of the failure to detect a given species is nearly entirely meaningless without also reporting the likelihood that species would be detected given the survey methods and effort level. The 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
15 same is true of desktop review; that is, there should be some means of validating habitat assessments based on the thousands of habitat assessments that have already been conducted in support of CEQA reviews. If industry standards in environmental review are to be credible, then they must include the use of the comparative method.

In the case of the proposed project, the IS/MND fails to explain how or why the steps taken to characterize the ecological community relate to CEQA’s primary objectives.

Additionally, the ecological community is inaccurately characterized as composed of only those species detected in reconnaissance surveys or deemed likely to occur based on desktop review of occurrence records. Furthermore, the IS/MND reports nothing about the uncertainties of Psomas’s (2024) findings, which vastly diminishes the accuracy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
Psomas (2024) deployed two biologists to record plant and wildlife species and map vegetation as a general site assessment on 19 September 2022. Psomas does not explain how its general site assessment contributes to CEQA’s objectives, but it is my opinion that each documentation of a species detected in a survey lessens the uncertainty of the species composition of the local ecological community, and it hence improves the accuracy of the characterization of the environmental setting. However, more information needs to be reported so that survey findings can be considered in an appropriate comparative context to provide perspective and to address uncertainty that such findings as the number of species detected represent the true number of species that occur on the site. Psomas (2024) fails to report its survey start time, its survey duration, and how its findings compare to other similar surveys in the region.

Psomas (2024) compiles all wildlife species detections into a single list that fails to identify which species were detected during the reconnaissance survey. Comparing the Wildlife Compendia between Psomas (2024) and Psomas (2023a), it is apparent that most of the species in Psomas’s (2024) Wildlife Compendium (app. A-2) were detected by the biologists who conducted focused burrowing owl surveys (Psomas 2023a), and two more were detected by biologists who conducted fairy shrimp surveys. The number of species detected solely during the reconnaissance survey is unreported.

Psomas (2024) reports 31 species of vertebrate wildlife were detected across all surveys.

Four of these species are special-status species, despite the IS/MND’s claim that “No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are expected to occur on the Proposed Project Site due to lack of suitable habitat and/or because they were absent during focused surveys.” In comparison, Noriko detected 42 species of vertebrate wildlife over a much shorter survey effort. Psomas detected 13 species that Noriko did not, but Noriko detected 24 species that Psomas did not, and ultimately Noriko’s survey effort brings the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on the site to 55, which is nearly double the number Psomas (2024) reports. A comparison between Psomas’s and Noriko’s surveys reveals that the wildlife community depicted by Psomas (2024) is nowhere close to accurate, and that it indicates that additional surveys would further increase the number of species known to the site.
16 Psomas (2024) documented 1.36 times number of vertebrate wildlife species as the average among surveys reported by consulting biologists at California project sites, and Noriko detected 1.39 times the number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 4). Psomas (2024) documented about the same number of special-status species vertebrate wildlife as the average among surveys reported by consulting biologists at California project sites, and Noriko detected about the same number we average in our surveys of the same sites (Figure 5).

Two comparative contexts are needed to fully disclose the meanings of survey findings in the IS/MND. The first is to contextualize the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, additional surveys contribute to an increasingly more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, but eventually to a point at which the species inventory would be obtained. Quicker progress toward an accurate characterization of the wildlife community can be achieved by adding nocturnal surveys as well as specialized surveys for detecting bats, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. However the surveys are done, it is imperative to compare survey findings to the findings from other surveys and their associated survey attributes to provide interpretive context such as to quantify the uncertainty of the findings, or alternatively to understand whether the findings fall within the expected range of findings given the survey methods and level of effort. If no such comparison is possible, then the lack of comparability should be discussed as a survey limitation.

Another example of how once can contextualize survey findings can be found in Figure 6, which compares Noriko’s findings to hundreds of other survey results at other proposed project sites, developed sites, and at relatively intact “references sites,” but it does so relative to the survey effort. This approach is more informative than the other comparative contexts because it factors in survey effort. Because Psomas (2024) fails to report key survey attributes, I cannot compare its reconnaissance survey findings to past consultant findings relative to survey effort.

The second comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. Psomas (2024) reports having failed to detect any special-status species of wildlife, but failures to detect special-status species can mean that the survey was inadequate. Each species presents survey personnel with a unique range of detection probabilities based on the species’ natural history, its behavior patterns, survey effort, the study area’s distance from known activity areas of the species, and the levels of skill of survey personnel. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. The probability of detection of any given species during any given survey is less than 100%, and for many species that truly occur on a given site, it is closer to 0%. 17 Figure 4. Frequency distribution of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the number of special-status species of wildlife detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by me and Noriko (right graph) among project sites surveyed in support of environmental reviews. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140 Consultants
Number of project sites
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 20
40 60
80 100
Smallwoods
Number of project sites
= 22.8
= 30.3
Chacon Farms (31)
Chacon Farms (42)
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 20
40 60
80 100
Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Consultants
Number of project sites
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Smallwoods
Number of project sites
= 4
= 6
Chacon Farms (4) Chacon Farms (7)
18 Figure 6. Noriko Smallwood’s survey findings at the Chacon Farms Project site relative to our survey findings at other project sites (red), at developed sites (black), and at more pristine sites that we survey as reference sites (green). Noriko’s findings exceed the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval based on the results of hundreds of surveys at project sites, and they approach the lower bound of the 95% CI from many surveys at reference sites.

For example, white-tailed kite was detected by neither Psomas or Noriko, but among our hundreds of surveys at project sites, Noriko and I have found white-tailed kites in environments similar to the Chacon Farms site. Based on hundreds of surveys within the geographic range of white-tailed kite, Noriko’s 5.15 hours of daylight survey combined with the knowledge that white-tailed kite has been documented within 1.5 of the project site afforded Noriko a 13% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite (Figure 7). Noriko would need to conduct many more surveys to accumulate a reasonable likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, but the patterns of our findings in our many other surveys depicted in Figure 7 reveal that it is unlikely that the white-tailed kite is absent from the project site. This use of the comparative method leads to a fundamentally different way of interpreting survey results than is expressed in Psomas (2024) and the IS/MND, and it provides for more accurate disclosure of potential project impacts.
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 tally of 30 vertebrate
wildlife species at Chacon Farms
19 Figure 7. Probability
of detection of whitetailed kite as a
function of survey
effort and proximity
of occurrence records
to a project site, based
on hundreds of
reconnaissance
surveys we completed
2019–2024.

This second comparative context is very important because it is the basis for the formulation of detection survey protocols. Experienced biologists are aware of survey limitations due to ranges of variation in the activity periods, levels of crypticity, and periodic movement patterns of wildlife species, and due to variation in the skill and commitment of survey personnel. This second comparative context acknowledges that the occurrence likelihood of a species on a particular site is rarely if ever zero, so long as the site is within the species’ geographic range and it provides habitat. This second comparative context reveals that a determination of zero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection if the species had been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This second comparative context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but it is neglected in the case of the IS/MND prepared for this project.

Psomas (2023a) conducted a detection survey for burrowing owls, and it appears to have complied with the appropriate survey guidelines (County of Riverside 2006). In my opinion, the County of Riverside (2006) guidelines are not as reliable as are the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW 2012) guidelines, but they are the 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 = 0.13
20 guidelines for properties within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Perhaps more importantly, it has been three years since the surveys of Psomas (2023a). Although Psomas’s surveys were negative for burrowing owls, it might very well be the case that burrowing owls are present on the project site in 2026. Breeding-season surveys should be repeated, and my recommendation would be to implement the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines.

Psomas (2023b) conducted focused surveys for rare plants in 2023 to determine presence or absence of rare plants. Again, absence determinations based on detection surveys only apply to the timespan of the surveys, and they cannot be relied upon three years hence. The surveys need to be repeated, but this time there needs to be full use of reference populations, because the 2023 survey did not make appropriate use of reference populations (see CDFW 2018).

No detection surveys were conducted for Crotch’s bumble bee (see CDFW 2023) nor for any other species other than fairy shrimp. The appropriate surveys were not implemented for various other types of wildlife, hence leaving conclusions in Psomas (2024) unfounded. For example, Psomas (2024) reports that no mammal species were detected during its surveys, but it does not caveat this finding with the fact that no acoustic surveys were conducted for bats, and no live-trapping was conducted for small mammals. Noriko detected bats because she implemented the appropriate survey method for doing so. I must also point out that Psomas actually did detect mammals, as Psomas (2023a) reportedly saw scattered California ground squirrel burrows on the project site. In another example, Psomas (2024) reports “No amphibian species were observed during the survey,” but Noriko did observe amphibians because she surveyed at the right time of day to do so. Psomas (2024) reports survey results as if they are definitive, but they are not.

Lastly, Noriko detected tricolored blackbird on the project site (Photo 13). The tricolored blackbird is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. It is a covered species under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), but as is apparent in the tricolored blackbird monitoring reports, the MSHCP is failing to conserve the tricolored blackbird. As of 2022, most of the activity of tricolored blackbirds in Riverside County had been reduced to the Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Core Area, but as of 2025 Colibri (2025) found only one breeding colony in Riverside County, and reports that the breeding population in this County is nearing extirpation. Noriko’s detection of this species on the project site is highly significant, but the IS/MND makes no mention of the tricolored blackbird.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The IS/MND does not assess the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife. The habitat assessment of Psomas (2024) did not include a habitat assessment.

The literature was reportedly reviewed, but no literature sources are cited. Data bases of species occurrence records were reportedly reviewed, but none of the results of database queries are reported. Specifically, Psomas (2024) reports having queried the California 21 Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for special-status species occurrence records in 9 USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles, but answers to the queries are not reported.

Psomas (2024:3) reports, “The majority of the site is considered low quality for wildlife due to the lack of native vegetation and surrounding immediate vicinity.” However, habitat quality is a term that represents population performance measured by such metrics as nest success, fecundity, and survivorship. None of these or any related metrics have been measured for any species on the project site. Therefore, Psomas lacks the basis for considering the project site to be of low quality for wildlife. Considering the number of species documented on the site, and the abundance of some of them, e.g., California gull, it seems unlikely that a general conclusion of low habitat quality applies to the project site. Nonetheless, no conclusion about habitat quality should be made without measuring population performance.

In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 153 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 153 species, 12 were recorded on or just off the project site (on the fringe), and another 42 (27%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 24 (16%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 67 (44%) between 4 and 30 miles (In region). Half (51%) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least 12 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.

Of the 153 special-status species of wildlife in Table 2, only 56 (36.6%) are covered by the MSHCP. The mitigation strategy of the MSHCP was not formulated to mitigate project impacts on 97 (63.4%) of the special-status species of wildlife in Table 2. Of the 56 covered species in Table 2, 4 are known to the project site and another 24 have been documented within 1.5 miles, so half the covered species are undoubtedly vulnerable to project impacts. Of the 97 special-status species in Table that lack MSHCP coverage, 8 are known to the project site, 18 have been documented within 1.5 miles, and another 12 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Of these species without coverage, 39% would be vulnerable to project impacts, including at least 8 that are known to the site. Paying the MSHCP mitigation fee would not address the conservation needs of many special-status species at issue.
22 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife at or near the project site, according to eBird or iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org), and survey findings On site, or records Very close (≤1.5 miles of the site), Nearby (1.5 – 4 miles), In region (4 – 30 miles), and In range, i.e., the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species that Noriko detected during her site visit or that one of us detected at a nearby site.

Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE In region Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Yes In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Nearby
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Yes In region
Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC Yes In region Granite spiny lizard Sceloporus orcutti Yes Nearby
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Nearby Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Nearby 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 Very close Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE Yes In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
23 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Yes In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close/On site
(Psomas)
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Very close
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Nearby
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close/On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Very close
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Yes Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Yes In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Yes Very close
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes Very close Great blue heron Ardea herodias Yes Very close
24 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Yes Very close/On site Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Yes Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Yes 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 Very close/On site 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
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2,
BOP
Yes Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens Yes Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP 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 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
25 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes In range
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Yes Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Yes Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Yes Very close/On site (Psomas)
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Yes In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Nearby
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
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 Nearby
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 Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes Nearby
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/On site Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yes Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region 26 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yes Very close 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 In region
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region/On site Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M Nearby/On site Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region/On site Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In range Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H 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/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Yes In region
Bobcat Lynx rufus Yes Nearby
Coyote Canis latrans Yes Nearby
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Yes Nearby
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Yes In region
27 Common name Species name Status1 MSHCP Records, Site survey Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region
Dulzura kangaroo rat Dipodomys simulans Yes In region
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FT, CT In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Yes In region
San Diego Bryant’s (formerly
desert) woodrat
Neotoma bryanti [formerly
lepida] intermedia
SSC Yes In region
Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC 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; 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; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; 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-ofconservation-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).
28 Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
Psomas (2024) reports on a field survey and a desktop review having been completed, but the field survey was much too cursory, and its results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere, and its desktop review is nearly entirely undocumented. Psomas (2024) concludes that the project site is of low habitat quality to wildlife, but it provides no basis for this conclusion, and the conclusion is readily refuted by Noriko Smallwood’s survey. Psomas’s conclusion of low habitat quality is only speculative, 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 with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.

Considering the deficiencies in the survey effort directed to the project site, the deficiencies in reporting of survey methods and the reporting of results, and the inadequacy of the desktop review to analyze the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community on the project 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. Impact predictions are necessary in environmental review 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 formulating a mitigation strategy or deciding on a project alternative. As noted earlier, the accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3). Prediction accuracy also relies on experience, of which development projects subjected to CEQA review have been made amply available (Figure 8). CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145.

SPECULATION), so it is experience that must be used. The type of experience proven most effective, and therefore most amenable to achieving CEQA’s primary objectives, is scientific inference, as generally depicted in Figure 8. Scientific inference can be drawn from scientific studies or from the many other projects that have undergone CEQA review. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference to predict impacts and to predict the efficacies of mitigation strategies, the latter of which should be also amply available in the record.
29 Figure 8. 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 by Psomas (2024) or the IS/MND, and some of which are not analyzed at all.

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 55 species of vertebrate wildlife which Psomas and Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown.

The surveys that have been conducted on the project site were unsuitable for detecting all bird nests or for estimating total nest density. The alternative method for estimating avian productive capacity is to infer it from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.

Noriko and I have completed studies to estimate total avian nest density in various environments, but not in an environment that would match the project site.

Noriko estimated an average 3.22 nests/acre among three of her grassland study sites in southern California, two of which were in nearby Murrieta. Assuming half this average on the agricultural portion of the project site, and 1.5 times her average on the remainder of the site, I estimate 145 nest sites on the project site. 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 202 nest attempts per year. Assuming Young’s (1948) Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions
30 study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 586 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 145 nest sites and 202 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 586 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) = 659 birds per year lost to California.

The loss of 659 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 659 birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

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. Psomas (2024) and the IS/MND rely on speculation, which CEQA prohibits for the purpose of understanding potential project impacts. According to Psomas (2024:3), and repeated in the IS/MND, “The project site is surrounded by development, with suburban development to the north and east, a dairy farm to the south, and construction an additional residential development to the west. Additionally, the project site is not located within a “Core” or “Linkage” area designated by the MSHCP. Wildlife could move locally through the project site and adjacent residential, agricultural, and dairy land. The project site is expected to be used for local movement by urban-tolerant species such as coyote (Canis latrans).” The IS/MND adds that coyote could continue to use the project site after development, and “Therefore, there would be no impact on wildlife movement.” Even surrounded by development – it is not, this setting would not rule out the importance of the project site to wildlife movement in the region. In fact, as habitat fragmentation advances, the isolated fragments of habitat that remain can emerge as even more important to the ability of volant species to move across the region, as the fragments provide migrants and long-range dispersers the only stopover opportunities for forage and refuge (Smallwood 2015).

Moreover, some of the birds Psomas and Noriko detected at the project site are migrants, and so are bats that Noriko detected. Two such migrants are cliff swallow and yellow-rumped warbler. The site is obviously important to the movement of at least some species, but Psomas did nothing to measure this movement. Psomas (2024) does not even identify wildlife movement as one of its survey objectives, and it indeed 31 implemented no study design or program of observations to characterize wildlife movement on or around the project site.

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 1,453 new residents in 419 single-family homes. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 639 new cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 77.958 vertebrate wildlife per year.

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 on 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.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts on 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 20―23), 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 32 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.

Photos 20 and 21. A
desert cottontail runs
across the road in
Murietta, California (top),
and a great-tailed grackle
crosses a road in the
Imperial Valley (bottom).

Photos 22 and 23.

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.
33 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 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 period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The IS/MND predicts 4,772,698 VMT for construction worker trips and construction vendor and hauling trips. The IS/MND also predicts an operational daily VMT of 39,298, which multiplied by 365 days = 14,343,770 annual VMT.

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 construction VMT predicts 2,030 vertebrate wildlife 34 fatalities. The Vasco Coad rate of fatalities divided into annual operational VMT predicts 6,101 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. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, 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 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 9. 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 predicted construction MT predicts 830 vertebrate wildlife fatalities, and applying it to annual operational VMT predicts 2,495 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic. 35 Figure 9.

Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.

A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 830 to 2,030 vertebrate wildlife caused by construction trips to and from the project site, and 2,495 to 6,101 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause 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.

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

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 101 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 1). All the birds represented in Table 1 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.

Noriko confirmed 48 vertebrate wildlife species on the project site, some of them flying across the site.

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

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found 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 37 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 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 38 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. The IS/MND does not predict the extents of windows in the project, nor does it provide any renderings of the homes in the project. However, it predicts 817,050 square feet in 419 single-family homes, which I can compare to the average m2 of glass windows relative to the sf of floor space that I have maintained in a database of other single-family residential development projects for which I have been able to measure window extents in renderings of the homes. Assuming 0.015193 m2 of glass window extent per sf, then I predict 12,413 m2 of windows among the single-family homes. This extent of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 907 (95% CI: 539–1,276) bird collision fatalities per year.

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 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.
39 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

Unfortunately, the IS/MND fails to seriously analyze the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources. According to the IS/MND (section 4.21), “While the Project may have the potential to impact the environment on a Projectspecific basis, these impacts would be limited in nature, as detailed throughout this IS/MND analysis. Further, compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.” However, if it was a simple matter of complying with regulatory requirements and implementing the project-specific mitigation measures, then CEQA would not need to require a cumulative impacts analysis.

This notion that complying with regulatory requirements and implementing the projectspecific mitigation measures would avoid significant cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of a cumulative impact. CEQA defines a cumulative impact as an impact “created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15065 (a)(3)).

Even though a project’s direct or indirect effects might be mitigated to a less than significant impact at the project level, it can still incrementally contribute to the effects of other projects for a significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines (§15064(h)(3)) states, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND fails to explain how regulatory requirements would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts. CEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis.

The IS/MND’s conclusion that existing regulations and project-specific mitigation would avoid significant cumulative impacts lacks evidentiary support, and it is readily refutable. Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of applicable laws and regulations, permitting requirements, and required mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had 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 control these sources of variation to cleanly 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 to 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 found that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds 40 (-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 and existing policies and regulations. Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife despite existing laws, policies and project-by-project requirements of mitigation. The environmental review for this project needs to include an appropriate cumulative impacts analysis.

Considering the predictable impacts from habitat destruction, the project’s interference with wildlife movement in the region, the depredation of wildlife by house cats that would be introduced to the area with new residents, and the collision mortality of wildlife with project-generated automobile traffic and the windows of homes, there is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts on wildlife and to formulate an effective mitigation strategy.

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. It needs to known which species are resident and which are migratory. For special-status species, detection surveys should have been completed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of its absence. Surveys should have been completed 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 3). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps, but rather copies a generic strategy that has been used at many other projects with no measurement of efficacy. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.

BIO-1 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl on the Proposed Project Site … within 30 days prior to construction. Methods for the pre-construction surveys shall be conducted as a one-day focused survey following the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP 2006). … If burrowing owl are observed, the Project Applicant … shall contact the City to discuss avoidance and minimization options. During the breeding season…, restrictions shall be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active burrow until the burrow is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist. The protective 41 buffer shall be 500 feet (or as otherwise approved by the City) around the active burrow. ... During the wintering season, an active burrow may be closed following CDFW-approved procedures with permission from the City. If the wintering burrow would not be directly impacted, a protective buffer of 160 feet (or as otherwise approved by the City) shall be placed around the burrow. … A preconstruction survey of one day carries nowhere near the detection probability of a focused series of breeding-season surveys, which is important because it has been too long since the focused surveys were conducted in 2023. What is needed prior to a preconstruction survey is a focused breeding-season survey.

Getting this measure right is very important because Riverside County cannot afford to lose any more burrowing owls to habitat destruction. The MSHCP has failed to achieve its conservation goals for 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.

BIO-2 To the extent possible, vegetation removal will be conducted during the nonbreeding season … to minimize direct impacts on nesting birds and raptors. If construction activities would be initiated during the peak breeding season for nesting birds/raptors (February 1–June 30), a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified Biologist within three days prior to the initiation of construction .... The nesting bird/raptor survey area will include a buffer of 100 feet around the work area for nesting birds and a buffer of 500 feet around the work area for nesting raptors.

This survey can be combined with the pre-construction burrowing owl survey described in MM BIO-1. If the Biologist does not find any active nests in or immediately adjacent to the impact area, construction activities can proceed.

If the Biologist detects an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, or breeding activities substantially disrupted by increased activity around the nest, the Biologist will determine an appropriate protective buffer around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. The protective buffer shall be between 25 to 100 feet for nesting birds and 300 to 500 feet for nesting raptors. ... Construction can proceed within the protective buffer when the qualified 42 Biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., fledglings have left the nest, or the nest has failed).

If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented, but this measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat, predation by house cats, nor the collision mortality with automobiles and the windows of homes. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should 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 BIO-2’s allotted timespan.

Many bird nests would be missed.

I estimate the project site supports 145 nest sites in the average year, and this number does not include those that would need to be located within the defined buffer area 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.

Furthermore, 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.

Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies as a “qualified biologist” in these contexts. As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest 43 surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a better definition of what is a qualified biologist in the contexts of these tasks, BIO-2 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall pay the MSHCP mitigation fee as directed by the City of San Jacinto based on the most current rates.

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 period, habitat losses totaled 101,214 acres, of which 19,104 acres (19%) were inside Criteria Cells. The MSHCP is failing to meet its goals and objectives.

The MSHCP has also failed to achieve its conservation goals for white-tailed kite – a California Fully Protected species. The first four 3-year monitoring periods were missed, or if they were implemented then no reports of them are available. Based on the last 3- year period reported (2021-2023), The first objective to conserve at least 19,880 ac of breeding habitat had not been achieved. I cannot determine whether the second objective was achieved to “include in the MSHCP Conservation Area of at least 10 Core Areas,” because the meaning of the objective is nebulous. The third objective to “conserve at least 281,890 ac of … foraging habitat” has not been achieved. The fourth objective to “conserve known winter roost area along San Timoteo Creek and any additional winter roost locations identified in the future” is unknown, because I have seen no reporting on this objective. The fifth objective to “maintain the continued use of, and successful reproduction in, at least 75 percent of the Core Areas every three years” was not achieved. In the 3-year periods ending in 2017, 2020, and 2023, the number of nests found in core areas decreased from 3 to 2 to 0. The MSHCP has failed to conserve white-tailed kites at target levels, and its performance is declining.

Of 143 assessments of MSHCP covered species in the 2023 Annual Report, 88 (62%) had failed to achieve the MSHCP’s population performance threshold (Table 3). Of these 88 species, the measured population performance of 49 fell far below the MSHCP’s threshold. Of the 55 species whose MSHCP’s population performance threshold were met as of 2023, 10 barely met the threshold. In other words, only 45 (31%) of the covered species have been measured firmly above their population performance thresholds. I must add, however, that many of these thresholds were established to be easily achieved.
44 Table 3. Whether population performance threshold was achieved, according to status update in 2023 Annual Report of the MSHCP. Boldened “No” means the measured success deviates far from the threshold.

Common name Scientific name Success?
Arroyo toad Bufo californicus No
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii No
Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Yes
Mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa No
Western spadefoot Scaphiopus hammondii Yes (slim)
Belding’s Orange-throated Whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus belding No Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus Yes Granite night lizard Xantusia henshawi henshawi Yes
Granite spiny lizard Sceloporus orcuttii Yes
Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber Yes San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra No San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti No
San Diego horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei Yes (slim) San Diego mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata pulchra No Southern rubber boa Charina bottae umbratica No
Southern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus No Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida No
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Yes
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza belli belli Yes
Black swift Cypseloides niger No
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea No
Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus No
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia Yes
California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis No Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica Yes Cooper’s hawk Accipiter coiperii Yes
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Yes
Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Yes
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis No
Golden eagle Aquila chysaetos No
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum No
Great blue heron Ardea Herodias Yes
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Yes
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviscianus No
MacGillivray’s warbler Oporonis tolmei No
Merlin Falco columbarius No
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus No
Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Yes
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla No
45 Common name Scientific name Success?
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis No
Northern harrier Circus hudsonicus No
Osprey Pandion halliaetus Yes (slim)
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Yes (slim)
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus No
Purple martin Progne subis No
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus No
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus No Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni No
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Yes (slim)
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura No
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis No White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Yes
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus No
Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus No
Wilson’s warbler Wilsoni pusilla No
Yellow-breasted chat Ictera virens Yes
Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri No
Arroyo chub Gila orcuttii No
Santa Ana sucker Catastomus santaanae No
Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni No
Santa Rosa Plateau Fairy Shrimp Linderiella santarosae Yes Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi No
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis No Quino Checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino No
Aguanga Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami collinus No
Bobcat Lynx rufus Yes
Brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani No
Coyote Canis latrans Yes
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys simulans No
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata No
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus No Mountain lion Puma concolor Yes
Northwestern San Diego Pocket
Mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax No
San Bernardino Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus californicus No San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami parvus No San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii No San Diego Desert Woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia No
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys stephensi Yes
Beautiful Hulsea Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha Yes
Brand’s Phacelia Phacelia stellaris No
California Beardtongue Penstemon californicus No
46 Common name Scientific name Success?
California Bedstraw Galium californicum ssp. primum No
California Black Walnut Juglans californica var. californica No California Muhly Muhlenbergia californica No
California Orcutt Grass Orcuttia californica No
Chickweed Oxytheca Oxytheca caryophylloides Yes
Cleveland's Bush Monkeyflower Mimulus clevelandii Yes
Cliff Cinquefoil Potentilla rimicola No
Coulter's Goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Yes Coulter's Matilija Poppy Romneya coulteri Yes
Davidson's Saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii No Engelmann Oak Quercus engelmannii No
Fish's Milkwort Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Yes
Graceful Tarplant Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata No
Hall's Monardella Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Yes
Hamitt’s Clay-cress Sibaropsis hammittii Yes
Heart-leaved Pitcher Sage Lepechinia cardiophylla No
Intermediate Mariposa Lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius No Jaeger's Milk-vetch Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri No Johnston's Rock Cress Arabis johnstonii No
Lemon Lily Lilium parryi Yes
Little Mousetail Myosurus minimus Yes
Long-spined Spine Flower Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
Yes
Many-stemmed Dudleya Dudleya multicaulis No
Mojave Tarplant Deinandra mohavensis No
Munz's Mariposa Lily Calochortus palmeri var. munzii yes Munz's Onion Allium munzii Yes (slim)
Nevin's Barberry Berberis nevinii No
Ocellated Humboldt Lily Lilium humboldtii ssp. Ocellatum Yes (slim) Orcutt's Brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii No
Palmer's Grapplinghook Harpagonella palmeri Yes
Palomar Monkeyflower Mimulus diffusus No
Parish's Brittlescale Atriplex parishii No
Parish's Meadowfoam Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii Yes Parry's Spine Flower Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi No
Payson's Jewelflower Caulanthus simulans No
Peninsular Spine Flower Chorizanthe leptotheca Yes
Plummer's Mariposa Lily Calochortus plummerae Yes
Prostrate Navarretia Navarretia prostrata Yes
Prostrate Spine Flower Chorizanthe procumbens No
Rainbow Manzanita Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Yes
Round-leaved Filaree Erodium macrophyllum No
San Diego Ambrosia Ambrosia pumila No
San Diego Button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Yes 47 Common name Scientific name Success?
San Jacinto Mountains Bedstraw Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum No San Jacinto Valley Crownscale Atriplex coronata var. notatior Yes (slim) San Miguel Savory Satureja chandleri No
Santa Ana River Woollystar Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Yes Shaggy-haired Alumroot Heuchera hirsutissima No
Slender-horned Spine Flower Dodecahema leptoceras No
Small-flowered Microseris Microseris douglasii var. platycarpha No Small-flowered Morning-glory Convolvulus simulans Yes (slim) Smooth Tarplant Centromadia pungens No
Spreading Navarretia Navarretia fossalis No
Sticky-leaved Dudleya Dudleya viscida Yes
Thread-leaved Brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia No
Vail Lake Ceanothus Ceanothus ophiochilus No
Vernal Barley Hordeum intercedens Yes (slim)
Wright's Trichocoronis Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii No Yucaipa Onion Allium marvinii No
The tricolored blackbird can serve as an example of a species that reportedly has been successfully conserved under the MSHCP, but only just barely clearing an easy success threshold. The population performance threshold was to “Maintain (once every 5 years) the continued use of, and successful reproduction within at least 1 of the identified Core Areas,” which should have been easily achieved if the species’ populations were (1) truly performing well, and (2) static in distribution. No monitoring was completed over six of the years since 2004, but of the years that were monitored, no breeding colonies were found in any Core Areas over four years, and breeding colonies were found in only one Core Area over seven years including over the last six years when tricolored blackbirds were monitored. As with other covered species, tricolored blackbirds shift their activity areas interannually and do not remain within Core Areas. This shifting mosaic pattern of abundance is typical of terrestrial animal populations (Taylor and Taylor 1979), and it is of course ill-suited to a conservation strategy focused on Core Areas.

Over multiple tricolored blackbird annual reports, the authors recommended redefining Core Areas to encompass the colony sites of breeding tricolored blackbirds. However, to stay true to the MSHCP’s conservation strategy, the authors of the 2022 report of tricolored blackbird monitoring reversed their earlier recommendation with the following conclusion: “At this time we do not have any recommended changes to the Core Area definitions or species objectives for Tricolored Blackbirds. As currently written, the Core Areas seem to generally capture where Tricolored Blackbirds occur within the Plan Area, although most of their activity is concentrated within just one Core Area (Mystic Lake/San Jacinto WA).” There is some internal inconsistency to this conclusion, which indicates a steadfastness to an ill-conceived strategy of expecting covered species to remain within Core Areas.

A better metric for assessing the performance of the MSHCP would have been the number of animals counted from year to year. In the case of tricolored blackbird, counts 48 were made of the number of breeding adults. These counts began prior to the MSHCP, and altogether they indicate a declining trend (Figure 10). The 2022 survey method switched to making counts from automobiles, which might have biased the last estimate low, but this reflects how the MSHCP’s monitoring is being managed. Regardless, the evidence collected per the MSHCP indicates an ongoing decline of tricolored blackbirds despite the conservation strategy of the MSHCP.

Although I have yet to thoroughly examine the available reports of monitoring of covered species, I saw no evidence of any species having expanded its occupied area or increased in abundance within the MSHCP area. Overall, the evidence supports the conclusion that most covered species have failed to achieve their population performance thresholds as of 2023, and most species have declined in spatial extent and abundance. The conservation strategy of the MSHCP has largely proven unsuccessful.

Figure 10. Trend
in the estimated
number of breeding
adult tricolored
blackbird in
Riverside County.

Data are from
MSHCP monitoring
reports.

As introduced above, the MSHCP’s conservation strategy of conserving Core Areas is a reason to distrust the notion that the MSHCP is going to offset individual project contributions to cumulative impacts. 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 Core Areas. 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. Furthermore, the consigning Year
Estimated no. of breeding adults in Riverside County
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Before
After
MSHCP
49 of wildlife to Core Areas 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; species are extinguished. The MSHCP cannot alone mitigate the impacts of this or all the other projects participating with it.

BIO-4 The Project Applicant and their designee (i.e., Construction Contractors) shall follow required MSHCP Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP). Applicable construction minimization measures are listed below. [A list of Best Management Practices followed.]
Should the project go forward, I concur with the implementation of all Best Management Practices, but it needs to be understood that their conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts on wildlife. None of the identified measures would avoid habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality of workers and vendors traveling to and from the construction site, nor of employees commuting or traveling as per operations of the project over the years following construction. Further, the MSHCP has not been effective at conserving its covered species (see my comments on BIO-3).

NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Compensatory Habitat Protection: The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds and other wildlife. 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. 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.

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).

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 50 shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).

Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).

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.

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, 51 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 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
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.
52 Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

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

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

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

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

Colibri Ecological Consulting. 2025. 2025 Tricolored Blackbird Statewide Survey December 2025, California. Report to Audubon California, San Francisco.

County of Riverside. 2006. Burrowing owl survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Environmental Programs Department. https://www.wrc- rca.org/species/survey_protocols/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.
53 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.

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
De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.

C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.

Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.

Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

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

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

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

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

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

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

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

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.

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, 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
55 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 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.

Psomas. 2023a. Western burrowing owl surveys for Chacon Farms property Assessor Parcel Numbers: 432-260-009, 432-260-026, and 432-260-027 (75.6-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 75.6 Acres) Cawston Avenue in the City of San Jacinto, Perris 56 USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 4S, Range 3W, Section 6. Report to Ramona Dairy, LLC, San Jacinto, California.

Psomas. 2023b. Results of Special Status Plant Surveys for the Chacon Farms Property in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. Report to Ramona Dairy, LLC, San Jacinto, California.

Psomas. 2024. Habitat Assessment for Chacon Farms Property. Report to Ramona Dairy, LLC, San Jacinto, California.

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.

Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.

Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.

Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 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 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
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. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, 57 challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

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

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

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.

Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Taylor, R. A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M. Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors).

Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

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.

Via Email
March 24, 2026
Michelle Peterson, Chair
Patricia Scott, Vice-Chair
John Gagnepain, Second Vice-Chair
Corinne Award, Commissioner
Taurus Jones, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of San Jacinrto
625 S. Pico Avenue
San Jacinto, CA 92583
[email protected]
Yaneli, Hernandez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Jacinto
595 South San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, CA 92583
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, Chacon Farms Project (SCH 2025101241), March 24, 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Item

5.1 Dear Chair Peterson, Vice Chair Scott, Honorable Commissioners and Planner Hernandez:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Chacon Farms Project (SCH 2025101241), which proposes the development of master-planned residential development consisting of 419 dwelling units as well as the construction of onsite roadways, a detention basin, parks, and on-site landscaping on 73.97-net acres, located at 710 Cawston Avenue North (APNs 432-260-009, 432-260- 026, and 432-260-027) in the City of San Jacinto (“Project”).

SAFER is concerned that the IS/MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act due to the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared for the Project rather than an MND because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. An EIR will ensure that potentially significant impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

March 24, 2026
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, Chacon Farms Project (SCH 2025101241), March 24, 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1