Fremont City Council
May 6, 2025

7507-002acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. MCGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: ( 916) 444- 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

October 23, 2024

Via Electronic Submission, Email, and Overnight Mail

Marc Cleveland, Associate Planner
Mark Hungerford, Project Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Emails: [email protected]

[email protected]

Joel Pullen, Planning Manager
[email protected]

Fremont Planning Commissioners
Yonggang Zhang, Chair;
Members: Jasmine Basrai, Vice Chair;
Charles Haiyun Liu;
Shobana Ramamurthi; Benjie Craig;
Benjamin Yee
Emails: [email protected]
;
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]

Re: Appeal to Planning Commission of Zoning Administrator Approval of Ardenwood at Paseo Project Discretionary Design Review Permit (PLN2022-00466)

Dear Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Pullen, and Honorable Commissioners:

We are writing on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”) to appeal the October 15, 2024 Fremont Zoning Administrator approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project (PLN2022-00466) (“Project”) proposed by Gavin Christenson, H&R Ardenwood and Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec, Inc. (collectively the “Applicant”) to the City of Fremont (“City”) and the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (“CEQA Checklist”) 1 prepared for the Project (collectively, “Appeal”). This Appeal is filed pursuant to the City of Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.300.

East Bay Residents appeals all actions taken by the Zoning Administrator on October 15, 2024 with regard to the Project, including but not limited to the Zoning

1 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Agenda Item 1. Ardenwood at Paseo – Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “CEQA Checklist”).

October 23, 2024

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
Administrator’s decision to approve the Project pursuant to CEQA exemptions.

East Bay Residents respectfully requests that the Commission uphold this appeal, vacate the Zoning Administrator’s October 15, 2024 decision to approve the Project, and require Staff to withdraw the CEQA Checklist and prepare a legally adequate project-level environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project to address all potentially significant impacts of the Project.

This Appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and is accompanied by the following:

• Required appeal form and attachments;
• Appeal fee of $2,450;
• Issues on Appeal: Comments filed with the Zoning Administrator ahead of the October 15, 2024 hearing on the Project, along with accompanying exhibits and expert comments, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

Appellants East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations directly affected by the Project. The association includes the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Fremont and Alameda County. EBRRD’s members would be directly affected by the Project’s unmitigated impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may exist on the Project site.

The organizational members of EBRRD also have an interest in enforcing the City’s planning and zoning laws and the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there. Indeed, continued degradation can, and has, caused restrictions on growth that reduce future employment opportunities. Finally, Residents’ members are concerned about projects that are built without providing opportunities to improve local recruitment, apprenticeship training, and retention of skilled workforces, and without providing lifesaving healthcare expenditures for the construction workforce.

October 23, 2024

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Municipal Code Section 18.300.030 states that “[a]ppeals may be filed by any interested party. An appeal shall be submitted in writing, on any form prescribed for that purpose by the city and accompanied by the required fee, and shall state the decision appealed from, the facts and basis for the appeal, and the relief or action sought.”2 Appeals must be filed within 10 calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed.3

This appeal is timely filed within 10 calendar days of the Zoning Administrator’s October 15, 2024 decision to approve the Project. The appeal is accompanied by the required appeal form (Universal Planning Application), the appeal fee of $2,450,4 and comments and evidence providing the basis for the appeal, in compliance with the City’s procedural requirements.

The Universal Planning Application also requires Appellants to attach a Reimbursement Agreement. We understand that East Bay Residents’ Appeal filing will be rejected and not filed unless it is accompanied by a signed Reimbursement Agreement. The Reimbursement Agreement is therefore included with this filing under protest. As East Bay Residents has previously explained to the City, 5 the
City’s practice of requiring members of the public to sign an open-ended Reimbursement Agreement with the City as a condition of filing an administrative land use appeal as members of the public is a violation of law.

The Reimbursement Agreement purports to authorize the City the charge appellants an undefined and unlimited amount of additional money for “staff review, coordination, and processing costs based on real time expended” on the appeal.6 The costs associated with the Reimbursement Agreements are open-ended and are above and beyond the actual appeal fee paid by the Appellant at the time their appeal is filed with the City. The City’s Reimbursement Agreement is an

2 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.300.030(a).
3 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.300.030(b).
4 City of Fremont Fee Schedule (With Developer Deposit Schedule) (July 8, 2024), available at:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13864/638573532122970000. 5 East Bay Residents previously objected to the City’s use of the Reimbursement Agreement in its 2023 and 2024 administrative appeals of the Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Project (PLN2022-00487) and Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (PLN2023-00198), in which East Bay Residents’ representatives were required to sign the Reimbursement Agreements as a condition of the appeal filings being accepted by the City.
6 See City of Fremont, Universal Planning Application, Part II, Reimbursement Agreement .

October 23, 2024

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
illegal contract that is void as against public policy.7 The Reimbursement Agreements are also an unduly burdensome requirement which violates EBRRD’s procedural due process rights because it imposes an undue burden on Appellants’ pursuit of an administrative appeal to exhaust administrative remedies required by law.8

III. BASIS FOR APPEAL

The basis for this appeal is set forth in East Bay Residents’ October 15, 2024 comments to the Zoning Administrator,9 as well as supplemental comments and evidence that will be presented to the Planning Commission on appeal.

East Bay Residents’ comments explain that the City’s decision to rely on a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption)10 and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 violated CEQA and were not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project site and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR. The specific issues presented to the Zoning Administrator are summarized in Exhibit A.

Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission’s review of all appeals “shall be de novo” and appeal review bodies are “not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal.” 11 Accordingly, we
reserve the right to supplement this appeal with additional written comments and supporting evidence,12 including but not limited to the City’s appeal fee and deposit structure, prior to consideration by the Planning Commission.

7 See Civil Code §§ 1608, 1667; Yoo v. Jho (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1251; see Trumbo v. Bank of Berkeley (1947) 77 Cal.App.2d 704, 710 (“The law does not imply a promise to pay for services illegally rendered under a contract expressly prohibited by statute.”). 8 California Teachers Ass’n v. State of Cal. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 327, 331. 9 See Exhibit A.
10 14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).
11 Id. at § 18.300.050.
12 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

October 23, 2024

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, and as will be presented to the Planning Commission on appeal, East Bay Residents urges the Planning Commission to reverse the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Project, and require staff to prepare a project-level EIR. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kelilah D. Federman

Attachments
KDF:acp

7507-001

ARIANA ABEDIFARD
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: ( 916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080- 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

October 15, 2024

Via Email and Hand Delivery

Clifford Nguyen
Zoning Administrator
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Email: [email protected]

Marc Cleveland
Project Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 1: Ardenwood at Paseo Project – 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway (PLN2022-00466)

Dear Mr. Nguyen and Mr Cleveland:

On behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”), we submit these comments on the Agenda, 1 Staff Report,2
and CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (“CEQA Checklist”)3 prepared for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project (PLN2022-00466) (“Project”) proposed by Gavin Christenson, H&R Ardenwood and Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec, Inc (collectively the “Applicant”) for the October 15, 2024 Zoning Administrator Public Hearing to consider a Discretionary Design Review and a Modification to the Zoning Standards and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
4 per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5

1 City of Fremont, Agenda, Zoning Administrator Public Hearing, City of Fremont California, 39550 Liberty Street, 3:00 P.M. (Oct. 15, 2024).
2 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Permit Staff Report (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “Staff Report”).
3 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Agenda Item 1. Ardenwood at Paseo – Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “CEQA Checklist”). 4 Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”). 5 14 CCR § 15183.

October 15, 2024

7507-
The Project site is located at 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway and 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont, California. The Project proposes to develop a total of approximately 450,420 square feet of industrial space in six individual buildings, of which five of them (Buildings 2 through 6) would be new buildings. The existing building (Building 1) would be renovated and incorporated into the proposed site layout with the other buildings onsite. The Project site is zoned P-81-15 (Ardenwood Planned District). Once operational, the Project would generate approximately 4,512 average daily trips. The CEQA Checklist provides that the Project would not include any diesel emergency generators or diesel fire pumps. 6 Construction
activities for the project would occur over 24 to 28 months.7 The proposed Project would include the demolition of 77,363 square feet of asphalt and the export of 2,472 cubic yards of soil.
8 The Project is located approximately 738 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptors, children and staff at Happy Memories Shri's Licensed Daycare and residences across the street. The CEQA Checklist makes no mention of the Daycare located within 1000 feet of the Project.

The Project does not meet the criteria for a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Community Plan Exemption”). The Zoning Administrator does not have substantial evidence to make the proposed finding that the Project “is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified” because the Project would result in environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed at a project-level in the General Plan EIR, and would not be fully mitigated by uniform policies and procedures.

As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached hereto9, the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan EIR, and has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR which are peculiar to the Project site, were not analyzed at a project-level, and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification because the Project had not yet been proposed when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified. For example, air quality consultant SWAPE’s modeling demonstrates that the Project will have significant site-specific health risk impacts from exposure of local residents, workers, and children to toxic diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions which will result in a cancer risk more severe than analyzed in the 2011

6 CEQA Checklist, p. 16.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 See Exhibit A, SWAPE Comments on the Ardenwood Warehouse Project (Oct. 14, 2024) (“SWAPE Comments”).

October 15, 2024

7507-
General Plan EIR and require additional mitigation. Moreover, the record before the Zoning Administrator does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will “not be detrimental to the public health or safety [or] unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare” as required by the Municipal Code 10 for
approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit.

As a result, the Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to approve the Project, the CEQA Checklist, or the Discretionary Design Review Permit at this time because the City has not complied with CEQA or the Municipal Code.

East Bay Residents respectfully requests that the Zoning Administrator continue today’s hearing and fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA and the Fremont Municipal Code by withdrawing the CEQA Checklist and preparing a project-level EIR to address the project-specific impacts identified in these comments. We reserve the right to supplement these comments with additional comments, issues, and evidence at later hearings and proceedings related to the Project.
11 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential impacts associated with Project development. The association includes the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Fremont and Alameda County.

The individual members of EBRRD live, work, and raise their families in the City and in Alameda County. They would be directly affected by the Project’s unmitigated impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may exist on the Project site.

10 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.235.060(c).
11 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

October 15, 2024

7507-
The organizational members of EBRRD also have an interest in enforcing the City’s planning and zoning laws and the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there. Indeed, continued degradation can, and has, caused restrictions on growth that reduce future employment opportunities. Finally, Residents’ members are concerned about projects that are built without providing opportunities to improve local recruitment, apprenticeship training, and retention of skilled construction workforces.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the City has satisfied in this case. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental impacts of a project before harm is done to the environment.
12 The EIR is the “heart” of this requirement,13 and has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”
14 To fulfill this purpose, the discussion of impacts in an EIR must be detailed, complete, and “reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
15 An adequate EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s conclusions.16

Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring imposition of mitigation measures and by requiring the consideration of environmentally superior alternatives. 17 CEQA
imposes an affirmative obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures to address all potentially significant impacts identified in the agency’s CEQA analysis.18 Without an adequate analysis and description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be

12 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(1) (“CEQA Guidelines”); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v.

Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
13 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. 14 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 15 CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722.
16 See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. 17 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2) and (3); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th, at p. 1354; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of Cal. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. 18 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002-21002.1.

October 15, 2024

7507-
impossible for agencies relying upon an EIR or other environmental document to meet this obligation.

Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.19 A CEQA lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings to approve a project unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved. For this reason, an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.20 This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.”21

The CEQA Guidelines explain that when an EIR has been for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR;

19 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
20 Kings County Farm Bureau v. County of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-28 (a groundwater purchase agreement found to be inadequate mitigation because there was no record evidence that replacement water was available).
21 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.

October 15, 2024

7507-
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 22 Only where none of the conditions described above calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred may the lead agency consider preparing a subsequent negative declaration, an Addendum or no further documentation.
23 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Community Plan Exemption”) provides streamlined review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by an existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
24 In those instances, the examination of environmental effects of subsequent buildout projects which were analyzed in the prior EIR may be limited to impacts which:

(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
25 The CEQA Checklist relies on both exemptions.

22 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)-(3).
23 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b).
24 CEQA Guidelines § 15183(a).
25 CEQA Guidelines § 15183(b).

October 15, 2024

7507-
III. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT

APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT UNDER A COMMUNITY PLAN

EXEMPTION OR ADDENDUM

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption) may only be relied on if a Project is consistent with a previously approved land use plan for which an EIR was prepared, and where the project does not have any impacts that are peculiar to the proposed project or parcel, are new or more significant than previously analyzed, are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts, or cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards.26 Similarly, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Addendum) prohibits an agency from foregoing preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR if there are substantial changes to a project, changed circumstances, or new information about project impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed. 27 The City’s reliance on a CEQA Checklist to exempt the Project from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines 15183 and 15162 is improper and not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has significant project- specific impacts that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, were not know and could not have been known when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified, and are more severe than previously analyzed. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR.

A. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Health Risk Impacts that are Peculiar to the Project and More Severe than Previously Analyzed

The CEQA Checklist states that the risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 12.44 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million resulting in an admittedly significant impact which was not disclosed in the General Plan EIR. 28 The CEQA Checklist attempts to dismiss the impact by stating that “all health risks would be reduced with implementation of FCM Section 18.218.050(a)(2), and the reduced cancer risk at the MEI would be 2.17 in one million, which would not

26 14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).
27 14 CCR § 15162.
28 CEQA Checklist, p. 24.

October 15, 2024

7507-
exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a), construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.”29 However, this statement is not supported by substantial evidence because the City did not quantify the health risk from all Project emissions, including DPM exposure during Project operation, and SWAPE determined that reliance on FMC mitigation does not support the conclusion that the health risk impacts would be reduced below the level of significance.30 In particular, SWAPE found that construction emissions may be more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR because the 2011 General Plan EIR did not contemplate the Project within 1000 feet of a daycare facility.

SWAPE conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified health risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist. SWAPE identified the Child (2-6 years) excess cancer risk factor, over the course of the Project’s operation as 14.5 in one million.
31 The total excess cancer risk for all populations, including 3rd Trimester pregnant individuals, Infants (0-2), Child (2-16), Adults (16-30) over the lifetime of the Project is 54.3 in one million excess cancer risk.32 The cancer risk associated with development of the Project so close to nearby sensitive receptors results in a significant cancer risk exceeding BAAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million.
33 The impact of Project operation on sensitive receptors, including those at the daycare were not known at the time the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified and are determined to have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. The 2011 General Plan EIR makes no mention of analysis of impacts of development under the General Plan on daycares within the Project vicinity.

Therefore, SWAPE’s health risk calculations constitute significant new information demonstrating a health risk impact which is more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR. Reliance on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum is therefore misplaced, and the Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to approve the Project, absent preparation of a project-level EIR.

29 Id.
30 SWAPE Comments, p. 2.
31 SWAPE Comments, p. 7.
32 Id.
33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, p. 3-4.

October 15, 2024

7507-
The CEQA Checklist also fails to support a CEQA exemption because it does not contain an HRA to adequately analyze impacts to nearby sensitive receptors within 1000 feet of the Project site. CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and prepare an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.34 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.35 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.36

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“BAAQMD”) 2022 CEQA Guidelines specifically recommends that a quantified HRA be prepared for projects within 1000 feet of a school:

For proposed projects within 1000 feet of a school, the Air District recommends that a student analysis is included in the Health Risk Assessment (see Appendix E, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards). Additionally, for any project located within one-quarter mile of a school that involves the construction or alteration of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or the handling of an extremely hazardous substance or mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in Health and Safety Code Section 25532(j), and that may impose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, the lead agency must consult with the affected school district or districts regarding the potential impact of the project on the school and notify the affected school district(s) of the project in writing, not less than 30 days before approval or certification of the negative declaration or EIR per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15186(b)(1)(2).
37 The Project is within 738 feet of the Happy Memories Shri’s Licensed Daycare, an early learning school and daycare. An HRA with a student analysis

34 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d).
35 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 36 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Section 5 Project-Level Air Quality Impacts, p. 5-1.

October 15, 2024

7507-
should therefore be prepared to comply with CEQA and to accurately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant health risk impacts.

1. Health Risk is Not Fully Mitigated by Uniformly Applied Development Policies, Standards, and Mitigation

SWAPE found that the SDRs under the Fremont Municipal Code and the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures do not sufficiently mitigate health risk impacts to less than significant levels.38 SWAPE found that additional mitigation is required to reduce the Project’s significant health risk impacts. In particular, SWAPE recommends the following:

Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.

B. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts that Are More Severe than Previously Analyzed and Require Additional Mitigation

The CEQA Checklist states that “During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx,

38 SWAPE Comments, p. 2.

October 15, 2024

7507-
ROG, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.”39 The CEQA Checklist incorrectly concludes that construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions.”40 This statement is not supported by substantial evidence. SWAPE calculated that Project construction DPM emissions may exceed BAAQMD thresholds and result in significant environmental impacts and public health impacts.41 SWAPE found that construction emissions would therefore result in significant, unmitigated impacts on the nearby daycare, and that, when combined with operational emissions, result in significant unmitigated impacts that are not fully reduced by reliance on the SDR’s or General Plan mitigation measures.

The General Plan EIR concluded that air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of General Plan MM AIR-

3. 42 The City therefore has a duty to consider and implement additional feasible mitigation to further reduce significant air quality impacts from the Project.43 Moreover, SWAPE concludes that the combination of MM AIR-3 and Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050 does not fully mitigate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The City therefore cannot rely on CEQA exemptions and must prepare a project-level EIR to disclose and further mitigate these impacts.

The CEQA Checklist provides that “FMC Section 18.218.050(a) (which supersedes General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3) would require the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in order to ensure construction fugitive dust impacts would be at a less-than-significant level. Therefore, additional project-specific mitigation is not required. As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.”
44 However, the City’s exclusive reliance on Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050(a) does not result in fully mitigated impacts. The City must therefore implement additional measures from General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure

39 CEQA Checklist, p. 22.
40 Id.
41 SWAPE Comments, p. 3.
42 CEQA Checklist, p. 16.
43 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 44 Id.

October 15, 2024

7507-
Mitigation AIR-3 as part of the Project’s Conditions of Approval, and must consider additional feasible mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3 requires applicants to “Implement BAAQMD- Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. Dust (PM10) Control Measures:

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.
• Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
• Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.
• Post a publicly-visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:
• The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate October 15, 2024

7507-
reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011 .
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors).
• Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. 45 Mitigation Measure AIR-3 adds additional community public health and air quality protections above and beyond what Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050(a). Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a) requires only the following:

(A) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily. (B) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.
(C) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
(D) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. (E) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(F) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by California airborne toxics control measure 22 City of Fremont Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. (G) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
(H) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number also shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

45 GP MM AIR-3 also contains a signage and 5-minute idling restriction which would not apply here since Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a)(2)(I) replaced this less stringent measure with a 2- minute idling requirement.

October 15, 2024

7507-
(I) Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment shall be limited to two minutes.
(J) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduction and 45 percent particulate matter (PM) reduction compared to the most recent Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
(K) Low volatile organic compound (i.e., reactive organic gas) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings) shall be used.
(L) All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with best available control technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
(M) All contractors shall use equipment that meets the Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
46 Beyond these measures, the City must identify and implement additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant air quality and health risk impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

EBRRD recommends the Zoning Administrator revise the Conditions of Approval to add Mitigation Measure AIR-3 to adequately address the Project’s potentially significant construction air quality impacts.

C. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Noise Impacts that are Peculiar to the Project and More Severe than Previously Analyzed

An EIR must be prepared because the Project results in potentially significant noise impacts, precluding reliance on a CEQA exemption. The CEQA Checklist provides that noise and vibration impacts from Project construction will

46 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.218.050(a).

October 15, 2024

7507-
be less than significant.47 But, the General Plan provides that “[d]ue to the density of development anticipated in Fremont, notably in the Downtown of City Center and PDAs, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibrations below to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.”
48 Given the General Plan’s determination that noise and vibration impacts associated with development under the General Plan will be significant and unavoidable,
49 the City must disclose this as a significant Project impact in a project-level EIR and must implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to the greatest extent feasible.5051 This will necessarily require implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure NOI-1 through NOI-5 to reduce the Project’s potentially significant construction noise and vibration impacts, as well as consideration of additional mitigation to reduce noise and vibration impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

General Plan Mitigation Measure Impact NOI-2 provides that “[m]ethods available to mitigate project-generated noise level increases would need to be studied on a case-by-case basis. Noise reduction methods could include the following: • New or larger noise barriers or other noise reduction techniques could be constructed to protect sensitive outdoor use areas and existing residential land uses where reasonable and feasible. Final design of such barriers should be completed during project level review.”
52 This demonstrates that noise impacts
under the General Plan EIR were not analyzed on a project level. Such analysis must be included in an EIR before the Project can lawfully be approved.

A. The City Cannot Rely on A CEQA Exemption to Approve the Project Because the Project Has Significant Cumulative GHG Impacts

An EIR must be prepared and an exemption is improper, where, as here, the Project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in

47 CEQA Checklist, p. 67.
48 Fremont Draft General Plan Update EIR State Clearinghouse Number: 2010082060 (July 2011), p. 2-26.
49 Id.
50 Covington 43 Cal.App.5th at 883.
51 The City’s failure to implement Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 also results in nonconformance with the General Plan.
52 Fremont Draft General Plan Update EIR State Clearinghouse Number: 2010082060 (July 2011), p. 6-19.

October 15, 2024

7507-
cumulative impacts.53 SWAPE concludes that the Project may result in significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts and that the CEQA Checklist does not provide substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with the Climate Action Plan.54 SWAPE confirmed that the Project Design Features would not adequately reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions impacts to less than significant levels.55 Project GHG impacts may therefore be more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR before the Project can lawfully be approved.

The 2011 General Plan EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the topics of Transportation and Circulation, Cultural and Archaeological Resources, Air Quality, Agricultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Global Climate Change.

Mitigation were identified to reduce all potentially significant effects to a less-than- significant level, except for the following:

• Unacceptable levels of service at specified intersections and on specified roadway segments
• Air quality emissions and Clean Air Plan consistency
• Noise increases related to traffic, and noise conflicts of incompatible uses and construction noise
• Potential demolition of cultural and historic resources • Loss or conversion of prime or unique farmland to urban uses, and • Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
56 As demonstrated in SWAPE’s comments, absent additional mitigation, the Project will contribute to and exacerbate impacts from cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The 2011 General Plan concluded that development under the General Plan will result in potentially significant, unmitigated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, for which no mitigation would fully reduce the significant impacts. 57 Here, the Project’s increased contribution to the General Plan’s significant exceedances of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is a project-level impact that is peculiar to the Project site, was not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and will result in more severe GHG impacts than previously contemplated. These project- specific impacts must be analyzed in a project-level EIR.

53 14 CCR § 15300.2.
54 SWAPE Comments, p. 8.
55 Id.
56 Fremont, Resolution 2011-68 – CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption, (Dec. 2011). 57 Id. at 13.

October 15, 2024

7507-

IV. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS

In order to approve a discretionary Design Review Permit, the Zoning Administrator must make the following findings:

(a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines;
(b) When a proposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means; (c) The multifamily residential1 project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not be detrimental to the public health or safety; or a nonmultifamily project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 58 As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached, the Project will result in a detriment to the public health and safety, due to the Project’s significant, unmitigated health risk and cancer risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors including residences and a daycare within 738 feet of the Project site. The Zoning Administrator cannot make the necessary findings to approve the Project given the Projects significant detriment to the public health and safety and welfare.

Further, the Project is zoned P-81-15 and P-81-15B within the Ardenwood Planned District. But the CEQA Checklist includes no analysis of the Project’s conformity with the Ardenwood Planned District zoning requirements. The CEQA Checklist does not provide clarification whether the Project is required to conform with the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Rezoning Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052) nor the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052). The Zoning Administrator must determine the Project substantially complies with these zoning requirements and community plans before the Project can lawfully be approved.

V. CONCLUSION

58 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.235.060 (emphasis added).

October 15, 2024

7507-
The Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to rely on a CEQA exemption for Project approval. The Project results in potentially significant impacts which are peculiar to the Project and not fully mitigated by mitigation measures under the General Plan EIR or FMC SDR’s. The Project cannot be approved until the City complies with CEQA and prepares an Initial Study and an EIR for the Project.

Sincerely,

Kelilah D. Federman

:kdf

EXHIBIT A

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
October 14, 2024
Kelilah Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Ardenwood Warehouse Project
Dear Ms. Federman,
We have reviewed the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Memorandum (“Memo”) for the Ardenwood Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fremont (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 450,420-square-feet (“SF”) of commercial space and 1,378 parking spaces on the 24.2-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Memo fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk 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. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The Memo conducts a health risk analysis (“HRA”) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions from Project construction. Specifically, the Memo estimates that, after the implementation of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) AQ-1, the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 2.17 in one million, which would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 33, Table D).

2 The Memo, however, fails to address the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The Memo’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, lacks adequate support.

Regarding the Project’s impacts due to exposure to construction related DPM emissions, the Memo asserts that “the project would not be a source of substantial emissions” (p. 33). By not preparing a quantified operational HRA, however, the Project is inconsistent with to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”1 Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with the California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”), which recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. 2 Furthermore, although the Memo includes a construction HRA assessing health risk impacts to nearby existing receptors, it fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to these receptors from both Project construction and operation. According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.” 3 The
Memo’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. An updated analysis should prepared to quantify the sum of the Project’s construction and operational health risks and compare it to the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the Memo (p. 71, Table 3-4).

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We prepared a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model.4 AERSCREEN utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum

1 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 2 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” CA DOJ, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best- practices.pdf, p. 6.
3 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 4 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.

3 reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to the approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the Memo’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.5 The Memo’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 267 pounds of DPM over the 723-day construction period.6 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 266.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
732 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00191 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 732-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.99 years. The Memo’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 80 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 80 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔

Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00115 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 24.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 443- by 221-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

A rural meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Fremont was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.7 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the

5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 6 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
7 “Fremont.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0626000. 4 annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.8 Regarding sensitive receptors, the Memo states:
“The proposed project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period” (p. 31).

Review of Google Earth shows that the nearest residential sensitive receptors are residences and the "Happy Memories Shri's Licensed Daycare" located adjacent to the Project site (see screenshot below).

The maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”), however, is located approximately 225 meters downwind of the Project site. Consequently, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.392 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 225 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.139 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.5569 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 225 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0557 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.9

8 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 9 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.

5 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by BAAQMD.10 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

10 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Health Risk Screening and Modeling” BAAQMD, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools/health-risk-screening-and-modeling 6 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)11
Age
Sensitivity
Factor12
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home13
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)14
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)

11 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 6; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24; see also: “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 4, 5. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 7 A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 732-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.76 years of the infant stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1392 1.61E-06
Construction 1.76 0.1392 3.41E-05
Operation 0.24 0.0555 1.89E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.60E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0555 1.45E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0555 2.23E-06
Lifetime 30 5.43E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 225 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 1.61,

36.0, 14.5, and 2.23 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately 54.3 in one million. As such, the lifetime cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 8 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Memo.

The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.

Therefore, since our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared and include updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The Memo relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude a less-than-significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impact (p. 36 – 39, Table F) (see excerpt below).

Note: The table has been redacted for the viewer’s convenience.

The Memo consequently concludes:
“As demonstrated in Table F above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from Climate Ready Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment” (p. 36 – 39).

The Memo, however, fails to adequately demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP. While the Memo claims that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP by implementing the project design features (“PDFs”), we are unable to verify that the above-mentioned

9 PDFs would be adequately implemented into the Project’s design. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“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.”
PDF’s that are not formally included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. As the above-mentioned measures from the City’s CAP are not formally included as mitigation measures, we are unable to guarantee that they will be adequately implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. The Memo does not correctly demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, and the unsupported GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The City is consequently 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 health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

In order to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the City consider several mitigation measures (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) recommends the following:
15 • Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50

15 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
10 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
• Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. • Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.
• Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
o Marked crosswalks,
o Count-down signal timers,
o Curb extensions,
o Raised crosswalks,
o Raised intersections,
o Median islands,
o Tight corner radii,
o Roundabouts or mini-circles, and
o On-street parking Chicanes/chokers.
• Create urban non-motorized zones.

Under Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the General Plan requires additional measures beyond those detailed in Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a). The following mitigation measures should be included to reduce the Projects potentially significant DPM emissions.

• Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:
11 • The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project. including owned. leased and subcontractor vehicles. will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors).

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”16
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Project- related DPM 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.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The Memo 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 discovery 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,

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

16 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
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. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ 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 10 October 2021

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:

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.

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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021

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.

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 affect 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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021

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. Masters 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. Bachelors 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.

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 from 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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021

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 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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021

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.

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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021

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. 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 effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate 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 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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021

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 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, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: 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., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number 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 Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, 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.: 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.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff 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 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., Plaintiffs 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., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

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.: 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. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 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.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 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 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.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009