Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[External]Comment_ Dexter Village Proje.. February 23, 2026 Via Email Robert Magee, Mayor Timothy J. Sheridan, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Manos Michael Carroll Brian Tisdale City Council City of Lake Elsinore 183 N. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 calvarez@lake-elsinore.org Re: SAFER Supplemental Comment Dexter Village Project (Application No. 2024-15) City Council Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) To Mayor Magee, Mayor Pro Tem Sheridan, and Honorable Councilmembers: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the mitigated negative declaration (“MND”), consisting of the Draft MND released in September 2025 and the Final MND released in October 2025, prepared for the Dexter Village Project (Application No. 2024-15) (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 14.3d at the City Council’s February 24, 2026 meeting. SAFER previously submitted a written comment to the Planning Commission dated January 16, 2026 (“January 16 Comment”), which is included in Attachment 11 to the Council’s Staff Report and incorporated herein by reference. SAFER’s January 16 Comment, which included reviews of the Project by experts on air quality and biological resources, argued that: (1) approval of the Project and MND would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by failing to prepare a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) despite a fair argument thar the Project may result in significant impacts to biological resources, human health, and air quality and (2) the MND failed to provide substantial evidence that the above impacts will be less than significant. This comment supplements SAFER’s January 16 Comment by adding a review of the Project by noise expert Ani Toncheva of the acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig. Ms. Toncheva’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Ms. Toncheva SAFER Comment Dexter Village Project CC Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) February 23, 2026 Page 2 found that the Project may result in significant noise impacts due to construction noise, construction vibration, traffic noise, and operational mechanical noise. Furthermore, Ms. Toncheva found that the MND failed to provide substantial evidence regarding baseline noise measurements and traffic noise. CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared instead of an MND if there is any substantial evidence that the Project may result in a significant impact, even if there is other contrary evidence. Due to the noise impacts discussed below, as well as the impacts identified in SAFER’s January 16 Comment, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council not approve the Project and MND at this time and, instead, direct staff to prepare an EIR prior to further consideration of this Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Dexter Village Project proposes a 451-unit residential development with 137 single- family units, 230 apartment units, and 84 townhomes on a 23.05-acre property located along Dexter Avenue between Second Street and Third Street in Lake Elsinore. on a 77.3 gross acre (66.3 net acre) site located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue at Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 620-170-009. The Project site is undeveloped and surrounded by commercial retail and vacant land to the north, undeveloped land to the east and west, and an RV park to the south. Interstate 15 is located approximately 550 feet to the west and State Route 74 is approximately 1,300 feet to the north. The Project requires a Tentative Tract Map (TTM-2024-05), Conditional Use Permit (CUP-2024-08), and Residential Design Review (RDR-2024-07). TTM-2024-05 would subdivide the 23.05-acre project site into separate lots for single-family and multi-family residential development. Development would occur in two phases. The first phase consists of the single-family residential development on 16.40 acres on the central and southern portions of the site. The second phase consists of the multi-family residential development on 6.65 acres on the northern portion of the site. LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS As the California Supreme Court held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-20.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the SAFER Comment Dexter Village Project CC Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) February 23, 2026 Page 3 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; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.) An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally SAFER Comment Dexter Village Project CC Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) February 23, 2026 Page 4 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. An EIR Is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Noise Impacts. Noise expert Ani Toncheva from the acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig reviewed the MND and its Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (“Noise Report”). Ms. Toncheva’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Toncheva found that the Project may result in significant noise impacts due to construction noise, construction vibration, traffic noise, and operational mechanical noise. Furthermore, Ms. Toncheva found that the MND failed to provide substantial evidence regarding baseline noise measurements and traffic noise. A. The Project May Result in Significant Impacts from Construction Noise. As noted in the MND’s Noise Report, the City’s thresholds for construction noise are 75, 80, and 85 dBA Leq for single-family residences, multifamily residences, and business properties, respectively. (Noise Report, p. 17.) The Noise Report claims that construction noise to nearby residences and businesses do not exceed those thresholds when measured from the center of the Project site. (Id.) However, measuring noise levels from the center of the Project site does not accurately reflect the noise impacts of this Project, where construction will take place within 35 feet of an RV park and within 100 feet of single family residences. The Noise Report claims that impacts were measured from the center of the site because Leq “is an hourly average and construction equipment at the center of the project site represents the average condition.” (Noise Report, p. 17.) However, as Ms. Toncheva explains: The Leq averages acoustical energy in the time domain. It does not, as the Noise Report suggests, represent an average distance. If the analysis were to apply a spatial SAFER Comment Dexter Village Project CC Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) February 23, 2026 Page 5 average, it should be over an area where equipment would be located during one hour (since an hourly Leq was used). (Ex. A, p. 3.) Using a formula from the FTA’s Noise and Vibration Manual, Ms. Toncheva calculated that construction noise levels at the RV park would reach 90 dBA Leq, which exceeds the City’s 80 dBA threshold for multifamily residences. (Ex. A, pp. 3-4.) Furthermore, the MND admits noise impacts are significant under CEQA if the Project would result in “generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels” (MND, p. 72.) The MND fails to discuss or establish a threshold for increases in ambient noise, only noting that noise level increases less than 3 dB would not be perceptible. (Ex. A, p. 4.) Ms. Toncheva’s calculations show that construction noise levels will be 27 dBA over existing ambient conditions. (Id.) As noted by the FTA, “increases above 20 dB consistently result in ‘vigorous action’ and ‘threats of legal action.’” (Id.) The 27 dBA increase therefore represents a severe increase that would exceed “any reasonable ambient-based increase limits.” (Id.) Ms. Toncheva’s analysis establishes a fair argument that the Project’s construction noise levels will exceed the applicable absolute thresholds and will result in a significant increase over existing ambient conditions. Due to this fair argument, CEQA requires that the City prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project. B. The Project May Result in Significant Impacts from Construction Vibration. The MND’s Noise Report states that the Project’s construction vibration would not exceed the annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/sec for any nearby residences or businesses. (MND, p. 21.) However, on the very next page, the Noise Report admits that vibration impacts at the RV Park to the southeast will reach 0.061 in/sec, which exceeds the 0.04 in/sec annoyance threshold. (Ex. A, p. 5.) Therefore, the MND itself establishes a fair argument that the Project may result in significant vibration impacts that require the preparation of an EIR. C. The Project May Result in Significant Impacts from Traffic Noise. The MND’s Noise Report used long-term measurements at six locations to measure ambient noise levels. (Noise Report, p. 12.) As a preliminary matter, the “dosimeters used for the measurements are typically used for work site noise exposure, not long-term environmental noise surveys. This may affect the baseline noise levels set by the project, which are required for ambient-based thresholds.” (Ex. A, p. 7.) The Noise report then separately reported estimated traffic noise levels on various road segments. (Noise Report, p. 13.) Using the long term measurements, Ms. Toncheva calculated the noise levels at a distance of 50 feet, finding that those measurements exceed the traffic noise levels from the Noise Report by 5-15 dBA. (Ex. A, pp. 5-6.) Guidance from CalTrans warns that “‘differences of 5 dBA or more should be approached with caution’ when validating traffic noise models.” (Id., p. 6.) SAFER Comment Dexter Village Project CC Agenda Item 14.3 (Feb. 24, 2026) February 23, 2026 Page 6 The Noise Report does not establish a threshold for the impact of traffic noise over existing ambient levels. (Ex. A, p. 6.) However, the Noise Report claims that traffic noise levels at the RV park will reach 53 dBA, under the 60 dBA threshold. (Id.) However, as Ms. Toncheva explains: The modeled existing noise level at the RV park was 15 dB lower than what was measured. Therefore, it’s possible the project-related Ldn adjusted for distance could be as high as 68 dBA. This would exceed the Municipal Code limit. (Id.) This significant impact must be addressed in an EIR, not an MND. D. The Project May Result in Significant Operational Noise Impacts. The MND claims that the mechanical noise impacts during operation of the Project will not be significant because the increase over ambient level would be less than 3 dB. (Ex. A, p. 7.) However, the MND wrongly assume that all mechanical noise will emanate from the center of the Project site. This does not accurately reflect the reality of this Project, where the new single - family homes will be approximately 72 to 124 feet from the RV park. (Id.) Ms. Toncheva calculated the noise levels from the Project’s HVAC units at the RV park and found that noise levels would exceed the 3 dB increase over ambient threshold and exceed the City’s 40 dBA nighttime noise limit. (Ex. A, p. 7.) Ms. Toncheva’s analysis establishes a fair argument that the Project’s operational noise levels will exceed the applicable absolute thresholds and will result in a significant increase over existing ambient conditions. Due to this fair argument, CEQA requires that the City prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project. CONCLUSION SAFER and its experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts to biological resources, human health, air quality, and noise. Furthermore, the MND failed to provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts to biological resources, human health, air quality, and noise. For the reasons discussed in this comment as well as SAFER’s January 16 Comment, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council not approve the Project and its MND at this time and, instead, direct planning staff to prepare an EIR prior to further consideration of this Project. Sincerely, Brian B. Flynn Lozeau Drury LLP EXHIBIT A 30 East 20th Street, Suite 3RW Tel: +1.212.785.0485 New York, NY 10003 E-mail: solutions@rwdi.com USA Wilson Ihrig is a consultancy within RWDI, specializing in acoustics, noise, and vibration. This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. © RWDI USA LLC (“RWDI”) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED wilsonihrig.com | rwdi.com 2/19/2026 Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 ( Re: Review and Comment on Noise Study Dexter Village Project RWDI Reference No. 2601902_01 Dear Brian Flynn, Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the information and noise impact analysis in the following documents: Dexter Village Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, November 2025 (IS/MND) Appendix I, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, September 2025 (Noise Report) Appendix A, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Report, June 2025 (Air Quality Report) The Proposed Dexter Village Project (Project) would result in the development of the 23.05-acre site with single-family and multi-family residential uses. The development is planned to include a recreational center and swimming pool. The project site is surrounded by commercial retail to the north, an RV park to the southeast, and single-family residences to the northwest. There is an animal sanctuary to the north of the site. Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our nearly 60 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others. Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 2 ADVERSE EFFECTS OF NOISE1 Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise. Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result. Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as cognitive decline, increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance. Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease. Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. Th is is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments. 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/66217) Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS The IS/MND underestimates construction noise from the Project and fails to properly mitigate potentially significant impacts. The Noise Report calculates noise levels at 50 feet for anticipated construction activities, using information on quantity, acoustical usage factor, and reference levels that are presented in Table K. The Noise Report then adjusts these levels to a distance from the center of the site to sensitive receptors, “because the City’s construction noise standard is an hourly average and construction equipment at the center of the project site represents the average condition” [Noise Report, p. 17]. Table L incorrectly compares these adjusted levels to the Municipal Code construction noise limits and reports no significant impact. The Noise Report reasonably interprets “maximum noise levels” in the Municipal Code construction section as hourly equivalent continuous sound level (Leq). The Leq represents the average energy for the duration of the noise measurement specified. The Leq averages acoustical energy in the time domain. It does not, as the Noise Report suggests, represent an average distance. If the analysis were to apply a spatial average, it should be over an area where equipment would be located during one hour (since an hourly Leq was used). According to the Noise Report, the construction noise analysis is based on the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook,2 which provides a formula for adjusting reference levels based on the distance from equipment to the receptor as well as the amount of time construction equipment is anticipated to produce noise on the job site. It is unreasonable to use the center of a 23.05-acre site for this distance adjustment, given construction will be taking place directly across 2nd Street from the RV park, as shown in the Project site plans provided in the IS/MND. Using these distances severely underestimates noise levels from construction activities and thus potential impacts. The Air Quality Report cited in the construction noise analysis provides distances between sensitive receptors and construction activities of 45 feet to the RV park to the southeast and 81 feet to the single-family residences to the northwest. The construction vibration section of the Noise Report uses a 35-foot distance for the RV park. Table 1 below presents construction noise levels for an example activity (grading) at this distance, per formula used in RCNM and presented in the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual (reproduced below). The predicted total activity level would be 90 dBA, clearly above the Municipal Code limits. where G (ground effect) is assumed to be 0. 2 Table of Contents - Handbook - Construction Noise - Noise - Environment - FHWA Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 4 Table 1 Predicted Grading Noise Levels at the Closest Sensitive Receptor Equipment (Amt.) Adjusage Lemission (Lmax) @ 50 ft., dBA Dist. (D) to Rec., ft. Leq @ Rec., dBA Increase, dB Grader (1) 0.40 85 35 84 Excavator (2) 0.40 85 35 84 Loader (2) 0.40 80 35 79 Scraper (2) 0.40 85 35 84 Dozer (1) 0.40 85 35 84 Total: 90 27 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines cited in the IS/MND state that impacts to noise would be significant if the proposed project would result in “generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels” [p. 72]. The IS/MND acknowledges that “construction activities would be higher than ambient noise levels and may result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise levels.” However, the document fails to establish an ambient based threshold for construction noise, only stating that noise level increases less than 3 dB would not be perceptible. The predicted grading noise level shown in Table 1 is 27 dB above the average daytime noise level reported in Table H of the Noise Report for LT-3 (the RV park), far above the 3 dB threshold of perceptible increase. As shown in Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual, which is based on actual case studies, community reaction to newly introduced noise gets stronger as noise above existing levels increases. Increases above 20 dB consistently result in “vigorous action” and “threats of legal action.” Figure 1 FTA Manual, Section on Receiver Response to Transit Noise (FTA page 18) The predicted construction noise levels shown in Table 1 clearly exceed Municipal Code absolute noise criteria and any reasonable ambient-based increase limits. The IS/MND fails to address these exceedances and does not provide any mitigation recommendations for construction noise. Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 5 The Project should establish an ambient based threshold for construction noise, correct predictions to closest receptor distances and provide mitigation measures to address significant impacts. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS The IS/MND underestimates construction vibration from the Project and fails to properly mitigate potentially significant impacts. The Noise Report adjusts reference vibration levels for construction equipment provided in Table N to a distance from receptors to the center of the site. Table O incorrectly compares these adjusted levels to the Caltrans annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV and reports no significant impact. According to the Noise Report, the construction vibration analysis is based on The Caltrans Vibration Guidance Manual,3 which provides a formula for adjusting reference levels for distance from equipment to the receptor. It is unreasonable to use the center of a 23.05-acre site for this distance adjustment, given construction will be taking place directly across 2nd Street from the RV park, as acknowledged by the construction vibration discussion in the Noise Report, which states that “the closest building is approximately 35 ft. southeast from the project construction boundary and would experience a vibration level of up to 0/061 PPV (in/sec)” [p. 21]. This level exceeds the 0.04 in/sec annoyance threshold adopted by the Noise Report. The Project should correct construction vibration predictions to closest receptor distances and provide mitigation measures to address significant impacts. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MISSING VALIDATION The IS/MND fails to properly establish existing traffic noise. Long-term measurements were conducted at six locations around the Project area. The measurement reports include observations on primary noise sources. No short-term measurements of traffic counts were performed. The modeled levels for existing traffic along 2nd and 3rd street (near residential sensitive receptors) reported in Table I of the Noise Report are lower than the reported measured levels. Table H shows an Ldn of 66.7 dBA at LT-1, 85 feet from the 3rd Street centerline and an Ldn of 65 dBA at LT-3, 20 feet from the 2nd Street centerline. Table 2 below adjusts these measured levels to 50 feet. As shown, the modeled traffic noise levels at these locations are 5 to 15 dB lower than the adjusted measurements. 3 dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 6 Table 2 Measured v. Modeled Traffic Noise Monitoring No. Ldn, dBA (Dist. to centerline) Ldn @ 50 ft., dBA Modeled Traffic Ldn, dBA (meas. v. model delta) LT-1 (SFR) 66.7 (85 ft.) 69 64 (5 dB) LT-3 (RV park) 65.0 (20 ft.) 61 46 (15 dB) The Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS) provides procedures for traffic studies, including a discussion of model accuracy tolerances.4 The TeNS recommends that “differences of 5 dBA or more should be approached with caution” when validating traffic noise models [TeNS p. 4-13]. The Project should address this discrepancy and validate the traffic model using properly established measured baseline (short-term attended measurements with traffic counts). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS The IS/MND underestimates traffic noise from the Project and fails to properly mitigate potentially significant impacts. The IS/MND fails to establish an increase criterion for traffic noise. The Noise Report acknowledges that “Table Q shows that the project-related traffic would increase noise by up to 3.0 dBA along 2nd Street between Dexter Avenue and Project Driveway 5” [p. 29]. This increase amount is mentioned multiple times in the report as perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment , though it is never explicitly confirmed as the threshold for potentially significant impact. The Noise Report then adjusts the modeled project-related Ldn of 49 dBA along 2nd Street to the distance between the RV park and the centerline (22 feet) and compares this level of 53 dBA to the Municipal Code absolute limit for residential uses of 60 dBA. As discussed above, the traffic noise model was not properly calibrated and cannot be compared to an absolute limit. The modeled existing noise level at the RV park was 15 dB lower than what was measured. Therefore, it’s possible the project-related Ldn adjusted for distance could be as high as 68 dBA. This would exceed the Municipal Code limit. The Project should establish an ambient based threshold for traffic noise, correct predictions with a properly validated traffic noise model and provide mitigation measures to address significant impacts. 4 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 7 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT MECHANICAL NOISE IMPACTS The IS/MND underestimates mechanical noise from the Project and fails to properly mitigate potentially significant impacts. The Noise Report shows mechanical noise levels of 46 to 48 dBA at residential receptors in Table T, acknowledging that these levels exceed the Municipal Code nighttime noise limit of 40 dBA for single-family residences. However, the report claims this would not constitute a significant impact because the increase over ambient would be less than 3 dB. The mechanical noise analysis adjusts the reference level of 44.4 dBA for the anticipated HVAC equipment for 435 units and then projects this level to the center of the site. These are the levels reported in Table T. It is unreasonable to use the center of a 23.05-acre site for this prediction, given there are rows of single-family homes across 2nd Street from the RV park, approximately 72 to 124 feet from RVs. As shown in Table 3 below, mechanical noise from HVAC units only in the first row of homes facing the RV park would be 51 dB. This assumes a single unit for each residence. Noise levels would be higher from additional units and additional rows of residences further back in the development. The lowest nighttime level measured at the RV park was 50 dBA. Mechanical noise from the first row of residences would increase the ambient by 3 dB, which is the only increase threshold presented by the MND [p. 76]. The combined noise level is 14 dB above the nighttime Municipal Code limit for residences. Table 3 Predicted Mechanical Noise at RV Park Receptors Sources Ref. Level @ 50 ft., dBA Dist. to RV park, ft. Noise Level at RV, dBA Combined Nighttime Level, dBA 1st row of detached homes (8 units) 44.4 72 50 1st row of townhomes (7 units) 44.4 124 45 Total: 51 54 BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS NOT CONDUCTED PROPERLY The Noise Report includes survey reports and photographs of the installations of all six measurement sites. However, it is not clear from the photographs where the microphone placement was and if windscreens were used. Environmental shrouds typically used for long-term surveys protect equipment from the elements and minimize wind-related noise. The Larson Davis dosimeters used for the measurements are typically used for work site noise exposure, not long- term environmental noise surveys. This may affect the baseline noise levels set by the project, which are required for ambient-based thresholds. Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP Job# 2601902_01 2/19/2026 Page 8 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The IS/MND acknowledges that the modeled exterior noise levels at Project receptors along the parameter of the site are above “normally compatible” levels for residential land use and identifies mitigation measures MM LU-1 and MM LU-2. The IS/MND shows predictions with and without balcony noise barriers for the apartment buildings and townhouse facing Dexter Avenue in Section XI. The Noise Report provides further discussion but does not provide calculations for the expected attenuation from these balcony walls. The Project should show that the 10-dB reduction required by MM LU-1 is feasible. MISSING SENSITIVE RECEPTOR There is an animal sanctuary to the north of the project that was not identified in the IS/MND as a sensitive receptor. The sanctuary is 1000 away from the Project site but may be impacted by increased traffic in the area generated by the 451 new residential units. The traffic noise analysis did not include predictions along Cambern Avenue. CONCLUSION The IS/MND operational and construction noise analysis contains errors and fails to identify potentially significant impacts. The IS/MND fails to validate the traffic noise model. The IS/MND underestimates construction vibration levels. Finally, the IS/MND ignores the animal sanctuary to the north of the project and fails to predict increase in traffic noise levels at this receptor. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Yours truly, Wilson Ihrig / RWDI Ani Toncheva Senior Acoustician ANI TONCHEVA Senior Consultant Since joining the firm in 2011, Ani has conducted analyses for transit systems, vibration-sensitive research facilities, public infrastructure, construction, and other environmental noise. She has contributed to literature reviews, including research on current practices of historical preservation. She has extensive experience working on construction projects in New York City and is well-versed in local noise codes. Education • B.A., Physics; Bard College, New York Professional Associations • Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC) • Member, Acoustical Society of America (ASA) • Member, WTS (Women’s Transportation Seminar) • Board Member, Transportation Research Forum (TRF), NY Chapter and International Board Project Experience National Academies of Sciences, NCHRP 25-25/Task 72, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects This report summarizes the results of the literature search and the survey of transportation agencies and provides a detailed discussion of seven informative case studies. A recommended guideline approach for addressing construction vibration effects on historic buildings has also been provided. Assisted with the literature review and case studies. National Academies of Sciences, ACRP 07-14, Improving Intelligibility of Airport Terminal Public Address Systems These guidelines are intended to be used by airport operators and design consultants. The research tasks included a literature review, questionnaire to airport operators, a sample passenger survey, acoustic measurements at six airports, and a presentation of best practices for acoustics, PA system design and specifications. Assisted with data analysis for acoustic measurements as part of this study. 101 Mass Avenue Mixed-Used Air Rights Project, Boston, MA Responsible for developing a Finite Element model of mixed -use development, built over MBTA commuter railway tracks, and spanning I-90 to analyze predicted building response to ground - borne vibration. 180 Jones Street Affordable Housing and Mixed-Use Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for a new mixed-use building. The project included 70 residential units and on-site community facilities. WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 2 206th Street Theater Vibration Study, New York, NY Analyzed ground vibration measurements at the site of the planned theater located near NYCT rail lines. 1801 Haight Street Mixed-Use Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for a new low-rise mixed-use building. Analog (ArtX) Hotel, Palo Alto, CA Prepared preliminary basis of design guidelines for a new five-story boutique hotel in a residential area. Work included evaluating exterior noise from a project that may affect guest areas and interior noise and vibration isolation measures. Centene Corporation Theater, Clayton, MO Conducted vibration measurements on the site to define and identify frequency and levels of vibration. The purpose of the study was to assess possible intrusion from trains and other sources into the proposed auditorium. David Geffen Hall Renovation, Lincoln Center, New York, NY Conducted vibration measurements on multiple levels of the existing David Geffen Hall structure to measure ground-borne vibration from subway trains. Performed background noise measurements inside the hall to determine ground -borne noise from subway trains. Esther’s Orbit Room, Oakland, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for the renovation of low-rise buildings near elevated train track. The project included a restaurant with live music, an artist gallery space, a wellness center, and two residential units. First Congregational Church of Berkeley Pilgrim Hall Replacement, Berkeley, CA Responsible for developing a 3D computer model of a new hall to prepare a basis of design guidelines for room acoustics and noise control and assist in developing acoustic specifications for various disciplines. Gansevoort Cooperative, New York, NY Conducted measurements inside several units in a mixed -use building to characterize commercial noise levels and recommend mitigation measures. Hollis Life Science, Emeryville, CA Conducted a drawing review regarding the new air handler units, exhaust fans , and related noise, and vibration-generating equipment, to recommend base isolation requirements to control vibration within the building, and to assess noise control requirements. Sunnydale Block 3A & 3B Mixed-Use Residential Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for two, mixed -use, 5-story buildings. The project was part of the complete rebuild of the existing Sunnydale-Velasco Housing Authority site through the HOPE SF Program. Pace University Performing Arts, New York, NY Conducted a vibration feasibility study for the proposed fit -out in an existing mixed-use commercial/residential building to accommodate the university’s dance program. The analysis WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 3 included vibration measurements of the existing space to characterize the floor response and determine vibration transmission between the dance spaces and residences on the upper floors. Estimated dance-induced vibration and provided recommendations on pos sible structural modifications to reduce vibration. The Perelman Performing Arts Center at The World Trade Center, New York, NY Conducted structure-borne vibration measurements as part of building vibration isolation design for the flexible performance space. Conducted quality control field visits during isolation pad installation. Carroll Gardens, Citizen's Place, Brooklyn, NY Conducted a baseline noise and vibration study in the vicinity of planned pilot test program. Observed pile operations and conducted short-term noise and vibration measurements during impact and vibratory pile driving tests. Columbia University Medical Center Medical and Graduate Education Building, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey and performed attended noise measurements during preliminary construction work. Installed long-term noise monitors and assisted with implementing a sophisticated remote noise monitoring system for a six-month construction phase, including building demolition. East Side Coastal Resiliency Noise Monitoring Plan, New York, NY Prepared noise monitoring plan for residences located near planned construction activities involving the use of pile driving methods for the installation of a flood protection system. Fulton Municipal Manufactured Gas Plant Environment Remediation, New York, NY Conducted a baseline noise and vibration study in the vicinity of planned Gowanus Canal remediation for the former MGP site, including long -term unattended and short-term noise and vibration measurements. Former Citizens Gas Works MGP Site Pilot Test Program, New York, NY Collected long-term baseline noise and vibration data. Conducted short -term attended noise and vibration measurements at during pile operations. Vibration measurements were conducted at nearby residences and at the MTA NYCT structure near the project site. Gowanus Canal Remediation, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise measurements and ongoing long -term noise and vibration monitoring in the vicinity of Gowanus Canal Superfund Site 4 th Street turning basin dredging and capping pilot study. Hudson Yards Tower C Foundations and Utilities, New York, NY Conducted a baseline noise survey prior to construction work, including a combination of long-term unattended and short-term attended noise measurements. Jewish Community Center of East Bay, Oakland, CA Oversaw the preparation of a construction noise management plan, which included detailed predictions of noise levels from planned activities and mitigation recommendations. The project consisted of renovation of existing buildings and outdoor facilities. WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 4 MacArthur BART Garage and Residences TOD, Oakland, CA Prepared monitoring reports for ongoing long -term vibration monitoring. MSK 74th Street, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey, assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan, and implemented a long-term noise monitoring program at two locations. Provided weekly reports of monitoring data with on-going assessments of Contractor compliance with project noise limits and coordinated interior short-term measurements in nearby residential buildings. NYMTA No. 7 Line Subway Extension, New York, NY Performed long-term noise monitoring for the ventilation shaft construction site. NYMTA No. 7 Line Subway Extension Site L Ventilation Facility Construction, New York, NY The project involved the mining and lining of two shafts and the construction of a 2-story ventilation building at Site L near Dyer Avenue on West 41st Street. Assisted with long-term noise compliance monitoring and preparation of monthly noise monitoring reports. NYMTA ESA/LIRR Grand Central Terminal Fit-Out, New York, NY Prepared the Contractor’s noise and vibration control plan updates for fit -out work conducted underground at the Grand Central Terminal Suburban Level. Performed field measurements of construction equipment noise and prepared noise emission certificates. NYMTA Railcar Acceptance and Testing Facility, Brooklyn, NY Prepared a construction noise control plan, which included predictions of noise levels from planned activities and mitigation recommendations. The project site was below grade and surrounded by residences and a school overlooking the work. NYMTA Sandy Powers Repairs, New York, NY Prepared a construction noise control, monitoring, and mitigation plan, which included detailed predictions of noise levels from planned activities and mitigation recommendations. The project included 18 sites and the plan contained site-specific calculations, monitoring locations, and noise control measures for each site. PANYNJ Lincoln Tunnel Helix Structural Rehabilitation, NJ Assisted in developing a construction noise control and mitigation plan and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program at three locations. Performed noise measurements of nighttime construction activities in the vicinity of sensitive receptor s. PANYNJ World Trade Center Vehicle Security Facility, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise surveys, assisted in developing construction noise control plans, and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program at six locations around the perimeter of the site at noise sensitive receptors. Provided weekly reports of monitoring data with on -going assessments of Contractor compliance with project noise limits. PANYNJ Midtown Bus Terminal Replacement Program – Dyer Deck-Overs, New York, NY Prepared a construction noise control and mitigation plan, which included detailed predictions of noise levels from planned activities and mitigation recommendations. The site included eight work WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 5 areas, both at grade and on lower level and was surrounded by mid - and high-rise residential buildings overlooking the construction area. PANYNJ Rehabilitation of Trans-Manhattan Expressway Overpasses, New York, NY Developed construction noise monitoring criteria for the project based on background levels measured at each work area. The project consisted of the replacement of two bridge structures and the rehabilitation of four additional bridges. The anticipated work was surrounded by mid - and high-rise residential uses. San Francisco Planning Department, Alameda Street Wet Weather Tunnel and Folsom Area Sewer Improvement, San Francisco, CA Project Manager in charge of noise and vibration analysis for Folsom Area stormwater infrastructure improvements, as part of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) flood resilience efforts under the Sewer System Improvement Program. Work included baseline noise survey, noise and vibration predictions, evaluation of applicable criteria and recommendations for noise and vibration control measures. SLAC LCSS Construction Vibration Study, Menlo Park, CA Generated a site-specific vibration propagation model and analyzed the potential for vibration impacts to ongoing scientific experiments during the construction of a new building on the SLAC campus. Testing included measuring transfer mobilities, determining the vibration response of particle beamline equipment, and vibration generated by construction equipment. CEQA Peer Reviews, California Peer review of noise and vibration analyses prepared per CEQA. These projects have primarily focused on the construction and operation of new facilities including residential in -fill, office and mixed-use projects, and educational buildings. Chevron Oil Refinery, SNR Plant, El Segundo, CA Development of three-dimensional acoustic model of project site for an environmental noise study to understand prevalence of noise created by the SNR plant located in the oil refinery, determination of regulatory compliance, development of noise criteria for tonal components observed in the adjacent communities and development of noise mitigation options for regulatory compliance and reduction of community annoyance. Millennium Bulk Terminal, Longview, WA Prepared noise analysis for the project’s NEPA and SEPA environmental impact statements. Tasks included future rail traffic modeling using CadnaA and preparation of noise contours using GIS. Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Haskin Hill Sanctuary, Loma Mar, CA Prepared an environmental study for a planned animal sanctuary in Loma Mar. Work included baseline noise measurements, predictions of expected noise from the completed project and a review of compliance with local regulations and CEQA. WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 6 ACTC I-680 Roadway Improvements and HOV Express Lanes, Contra Costa County, CA Assisted with predictions for traffic noise study. The work included noise modelling and impact assessments consistent with FHWA and Caltrans procedures and methodology for multiple project alternatives. ACTC I-880/Whipple Interchange, Hayward, CA Project Manager for a traffic noise study. The work included noise modelling and impact assessments consistent with FHWA and Caltrans procedures and methodology for multiple project alternatives. I-80/Ashby Avenue (SR-13) Interchange Improvements, Berkeley, CA Project Manager for a traffic noise study. The work included noise modelling and impact assessments consistent with FHWA and Caltrans procedures and methodology for multiple project alternatives. Junipero Serra Traffic Noise Study, South San Francisco, CA Noise analysis of existing traffic noise and potential benefits of noise abatement measures such as sound walls and quieter pavement. Riverstone Apartments, Seattle, WA This street will serve the future Star Lake Station currently under construction for Sound Transit’s Federal Way Link Extension. As part of the Federal Way project, improvements to the street include the addition of a turning lane and traffic light (currently in place) at the end of a roadway. The study provided an independent assessment of the potential for traffic noise impacts on the residents of Riverstone based on FTA project noise criterion. 50 Pine Street Condominiums, New York, NY The project involved evaluating noise at residential dwelling units for NYC noise code compliance. Measured noise levels from mechanical equipment in an enclosed courtyard. Uptown Newport, Newport Beach, CA Evaluation of noise levels due to mechanical equipment at adjacent property. Assisted heavily with data analysis from long-term monitoring and data presentation for the legal team. BART Berryessa Station Transit Noise Impact and Mitigation, San Jose, CA Assisted with noise predictions and barrier design recommendations. Project is a 10.2 -mile extension of a heavy rail transit system in the San Francisco Bay Area, and this is one of the stations along the new route. California High-Speed Rail Fresno-Merced Corridor, Fresno-Merced, CA Lead noise analyst for the project’s environmental impact assessment. Tasks included characterizing the existing noise conditions and assessing noise impacts from transit operations and construction-related activities. Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification, San Francisco Peninsula, CA Analyzed previous noise study. Assisted in developing current noise prediction model and GIS model for vibration. Helped prepare FEIR. This project included extensive ambient noise and vibration measurement surveys; the development of noise and vibration prediction models for HST operations; prediction of wayside noise and vibration levels for HST operations; evaluation of WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 7 environmental noise and vibration impacts using FRA procedures and criteria and determining the need for any type of noise mitigation. LA Metro Purple (D) Line Subway Extension - Section 3, Los Angeles, CA Responsible for developing detailed 3D computer models for two transit stations using EASE software. Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Purple Line LRT Final Design, Bethesda to New Carrollton, MD Responsible for developing detailed 3D computer models for three transit stations using EASE software. Developed 3D models of TPSS sites to evaluate noise from mechanical equipment. MBTA Green Line Extension Design/Build (GLX), Boston, MA Lead analyst on noise predictions and barrier design. Work included planning field measurements, conducting data analysis, predicting noise impacts from project operations, and making barrier design recommendations. Metrolinx Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Toronto, Ontario Reviewed historic reports for relevant data, assisted with GIS model and preparation for noise and vibration measurements. The TTC is planning to construct the Eglinton Tunnel subway line and needed to address what mitigation could be necessary to reduce ground -borne noise and vibration impacts. The proposed study would determine the most likely range of ground-borne noise and vibration levels in residences and other sensitive buildings along the planned alignment. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) LRRT-LRV Midlife Rebuild, Buffalo, NY Participated in vehicle noise qualification testing program for refurbished light rail transit vehicles. RTD Eagle P3 Northwest Corridor Noise and Impacts, Denver, CO Assisted with data analysis and helped prepare the final technical report. The project consists of 33 miles of EMU Commuter Rail connecting downtown Denver Union Station to the Denver International Airport. This project also includes a Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility with a capacity to store and service 100 EMU. Santa Clara VTA, Vasona LRT Corridor Tire-Derived Aggregate (TDA) Underlayment Performance Testing, San Jose, CA Project Manager in charge of planning a series of tests to document the performance of TDA ballast underlayment over time, as required by FTA. Previous tests were done in 2006, 2006, and 2009. Work will include documenting vibration isolation performance, rail strain, and rail deflection. Sound Transit Northgate Link Vibration Attenuation Estimates, Seattle, WA Provided general field support for all elements of testing. Tasks included moving equipment into/out of the tunnel, deploying sensors on campus, and attending to wireless antennas during testing. To derive the relationship between vibration measured in the Northgate link tunnel and building vibration at research facilities on the University of Washington campus, field tests were conducted using a shaker in the tunnel while simultaneously measuring the vibration response in UW buildings using a wireless data collection system. WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva – Page 8 TJPA San Francisco Downtown Rail Extension (The Portal), San Francisco, CA Project Manager in charge of preliminary engineering noise and vibration analysis. The project consists of a 2.4-mile at-grade and tunnel alignment starting at the existing Caltrain terminal station and railyard and ending at the Salesforce Transit Center. Provided updated noise and vibration predictions for the project based on current design and abasement measure design recommendations based on new field testing and updated analysis. Provided an additional study and report of vibration impacts on a sensit ive structure along the alignment and possible mitigation strategies. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Scarborough Subway Extension, Toronto, ONT, Canada Conducted force density level (FDL) measurements and analysis for the Toronto Rocket vehicles on TTC standard double ties on the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension. Predicted ground-borne noise and vibration levels at sensitive receptors along the Scarborough extension and prepared project memos. VTA's BART Silicon Valley Extension Phase II (BSVII) (2020+) Responsibilities included station acoustics and speech intelligibility design and evaluation of operational train noise and vibration. The largest single public infrastructure project ever constructed in Santa Clara County, this phase of VTA’s BART to Silicon Valley project will extend BART service six miles from the Berryessa Transit Center into San Jose and ending in the City of Santa Clara. WMATA On-Call Task: Green Line Noise and Vibration, Washington, DC Conducted extensive field measurements inside homes and along tunnels to document ground- borne noise and vibration due to WMATA Green Line trains. Performed rail roughness measurements along sections of track within the study area. Analyzed recordings to determine train passby levels and plotted data to compare resul ts for the different vehicle fleets and compare to applicable criteria. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Vehicles Out -of-Round Wheel Study, DC Assisted with modal analysis on nine wheelsets of WMATA vehicles.