Pleasanton City Council
February 18, 2025

Entitlement applications for both Projects were originally filed with Alameda County (" County"). The Arroyo Lago Project, proposed by 330 Land Company, LLC Arroyo Lago Applicant"), proposes construction of 194 market- rate single- family homes, with 49 accessory dwelling units, on an approximately 26.6-acre site in East Pleasanton. 2 The Arroyo Lago Project site consists of three Assessor' s Parcel Numbers (" APNs")- APN 946- 4634- 1 ( the residential site) as well as APN 946- 4634- 2 and APN 946- 1350- 3- 10 (the off- site improvements), 3 owned by USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. and Lionstone U. S. Land One L. P.4 The East Lakes Project, proposed by the same property owner as the Arroyo Lago Project, USL Pleasanton Lakes (" East Lakes Applicant"), proposes 357 single- family age-restricted homes and 88 age- restricted assisted living units, for a total of 445 units, to be located on approximately 61.6 acresof parcelAPN 946-4634-2 (the sameparcel proposedfor the Arroyo Lago Project' s offsite improvements). 5
The County released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (" DEIR") for the Arroyo Lago Project September 2024 with a comment period that closed on November 8, 2024. The DEIR did not describe the proposed annexation of the Project sites by the City as part of the Project. Instead, the DEIR described annexation as a Project alternative which was " determined to be infeasible." 6 The City Council Agenda Report (" Staff Report") prepared for the February 4, 2025 City Council hearing now explains that the City has beenin active annexation discussions with the Applicants since August 2024. 7 The Staff Report further explains that, since August 2024, the applicants have submitted " modified project concepts" for both sites to the City, and are proceedingwith annexation applications and associated entitlement applications to obtain all necessary Project 2Staff report, p. 2.
3CountyofAlameda,ArroyoLagoResidentialProjectNoticeofPreparationofanEnvironmental Impact Report( May 12, 2023)( hereinafter" NOP"), available at https:// ceganet. opr. ca.gov/2023050339/ Attachment/ Blt3xk( last visited 9/ 6/24). 4SeeNOPExhibit 6,identifyingUSLPleasantonLakesasownerofparcelsAPN946-1350-3-10and APN 946- 4634- 2.
5 Exhibit C— Housing Crisis Act of 2019SB 330Preliminary Application Form APN 946-434- 002 June 4, 2024); Exhibit D— Letter from Holland& Knight to Albert Lopez, Planning Director AlamedaCounty, ReSubmittalofSB330PreliminaryApplicationfor" Builder'sRemedy"Projectat BuschRd.,AlamedaCounty,APN946-4634-002 (June4, 2024); City ofPleasonton2/4/25Staff Report,p.2(describingrevisedEastLakesProjectapplicationfiledin October2024). 6 DEIR, p. 6- 25.
7CityofPleasanton, CityCouncilAgendaReportItem#12(Feb. 4, 2025),p. 2(hereinafter"Staff Report").
7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

approvals from the City. 8 In addition to annexation, which must be approved by both the City and the Local Agency Formation Commission (" LAFCO"), City Project approvals will include General Plan amendments, prezoning, planned unit development (" PUD") permits, subdivision maps, CEQA review, and" other permits and approvals as determined necessary by the City." 9 This information was not disclosed to the public in the Arroyo Lago DEIR and is substantial new information which requires the DEIR to be revised and recirculated for additional public review and comment. 10As the primary approving agency for both Projects and a lead agency for the annexation, the City must assume the role of lead agency for purposes of the Projects' entitlement process and environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA!'). 11 East Bay Residents submitted comments to the County on the Arroyo Lago DEIR in October 202412which provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR prepared by the County failed to comply with CEQA. These comments remain unresolved. In particular, the DEIR improperly piecemealed its description of the Projects by failing to analyze the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects in a single EIR. The Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project share a common property owner, would undergo concurrent development and operation, and would occupy the same parcel, APN 946- 4634- 2. Nevertheless, the County failed to analyze the impacts of the East Lakes Project in the DEIR as part of the overall Arroyo Lago Project development proposal. The combined impacts of both Projects must be analyzed concurrently by the City due to the proposed annexation and entitlement for both Projects which is now proposed to be conducted by the City of Pleasanton.

East Bay Residents' DEIR comments, supported by expert analysis, also demonstrated that the Projects have significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, greenhousegas, andcumulativeimpacts.13While someimpactsmaybe 8Staff Report, pp. 2-4; Arroyo LagoApplication ProcessingTerms; East Lakes Application processing terms. The Staff Report provides that" the applicants have expressedwillingness to work with the City to modifytheprojectsin conjunctionwith anannexationapplication, andafterconsidering feedbackfrom neighborsof the Arroyo Lago Project, and from City staff regarding both the Arroyo Lagoand East Lakes projects, have submitted revised" City" versions of the two projects."). 9 Staff Report, Attachments 1 and 2.
10 14 Cal. Code Regs(" CCR" or" CEQA Guidelines")§ 15088. 5 11 Pub. Resources Code(" PRC") §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR" §§ 15000 et seq. 12East Bay Residents'DEIR commentsare attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 13 East Bay Residents' comments on air quality, public health, and greenhouse gas(" GHG") impacts werepreparedwiththeassistanceofairqualityandGHGexpertPaulE.Rosenfeld,Ph.D.ofSoil Water Air Protection Enterprises, whose comments are included in the SWAPE Comments (" SWAPE Comments"). The SWAPE Comments and Dr. Rosenfeld' s expert curriculum vitae (" CV") are 7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

lessened if the Projects utilize City public services and utilities in lieu of constructing new facilities, the Projects would result in new impacts on, inter alia, public services and utilities, which were not analyzed by the County. In particular, the DEIR failed to analyze whether the Projects could be adequately served by the City' s public and utility services, including but not limited to fire and water, in the event of annexation. The Project descriptions have also been revised since the original DEIR was released. These changes in the Projects must be thoroughly analyzed and included in a new or revised DEIR, in addition to the pending environmental studies identified in the Staff Report.

EBRRD asks the City Council to direct City Staff to prepare a new DEIR, or revise and recirculate the Arroyo Lago DEIR, to analyze the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects in a single EIR, and to address the potentially significant impacts associated with the City' s proposed annexation and entitlement actions for the Projects. This analysis must include disclosure and mitigation of all potentially significant environmental and public health impacts associated with construction and operation of the Projects. 14 A revised and recirculated EIR is required where, as here, significant new information, like changes in the project description and annexation, is disclosed after the original EIR was prepared. 15
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
East Bay Residentsis an unincorporated associationof individuals and labor organizations that may be adverselyaffectedby the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public serviceimpacts of the Project. The association includes International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, their members and families, and other individuals that live and/ or work in Alameda County.
attached to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit A. East Bay Residents'commentson noiseand vibration were preparedwiththeassistanceofAniToncheva, acoustics, noise, andvibrationexpertofWilsonIhrig.

Ms. Toncheva' s Comments(" Toncheva Comments") and Ms. Toncheva' s CV are attached to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit B.
14Alternatively,theCitymayneedtoprepareasupplementalEIR. A SupplementalEIRisrequired to analyzethe" changes [that] would benecessaryto make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." Id. at§ 15163( a)( 2). 15 Id. at§ 15088. 5( a).
7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

Individual members of East Bay Residents and its affiliated labor organizations who live, work, recreate and raise their families in Alameda County.

They would be directly affected by the Project' s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

Accordingly, they will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. East Bay Residents has an interest in enforcing 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.

II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE A NEW DEIR, OR REVISE AND

RECIRCULATE THE ARROYO LAGO DEIR, TO ANALYZE

ANNEXATION AND APPROVAL OF BOTH PROJECTS
A. The City Must Assume the Role of Lead Agency for Both Projects The proposed annexation of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project sites, and the proposed transfer of entitlement approvals to the City of Pleasanton, require the City to assume the role of lead agency for the Projects under CEQA and analyze the Projects in a single EIR.

By annexing the Project sites, the City of Pleasantonbecomesthe successor CEQAlead agencyafter Alameda County.16In Gentry v. City of Murrieta, the lead agency changed during the CEQA environmental review process. In that case, as here, the County preparedthe environmental review document.17Then, when the City of Murieta was incorporated, it took over as lead agency.18The City of Murieta then released the negative declaration as its own. 19 Similarly here, upon annexation, the City of Pleasantonwould be deemedthe successorlead agencyand must take over as lead agencyto revise the DEIR prepared for the Arroyo Lago Project to include the East Lakes Project and include analysis of impacts associated with annexation in a recirculated EIR.
16Gentry v. City of Murrieta( 1995) 36 CA4th 1359, 1383. 17Id. at 1398.
is Id.
19 Id.
7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

Pursuant to CEQA, the City would become successor lead agency when it annexes the Project sites and is required to conduct environmental review of its actions that reflects its independent judgment. 20 There can only be one CEQA lead agency for a particular project. 21 As a general rule, the agency that acts first will normally serve as the lead agency.22 However, depending on the circumstances, the agency that acts first might not always be the appropriate lead agency.23 An annexation constitutes a " project" for CEQA purposes.
24 Here, the City is the
CEQA successor lead agency following annexation.

Approval of the Projects' land use entitlements by the City also requires the City to assumethe role of lead agency. The Staff Report explains that approval of the Projects' underlying entitlements will be transferred to the City in conjunction with annexation, and will require City approval of General Plan amendments, prezoning, PUD permits, subdivision maps, CEQA review, and" other permits and approvals as determined necessary by the City." 25 The CEQA Guidelines specify that when a project is to be carried out by a private party, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project" as a whole." 26 "
Greatest responsibility" is defined as "the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agencywith a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution control district or a district which will provide a public service or public utility to the project." 27 Here, the City will become the agency with the " greatest responsibility" to approve the Projects' land use entitlements, in addition to its lead agency role related to annexation. In particular, the proposed prezoning of the Project sites demonstrates that the City must assume the role of CEQA lead agency. The CEQA Guidelines provide that, when a city prezonesan area, the city will act aslead agencyand the LAFCO as a responsibleagencyfor any subsequentannexation.28 20 PRC § § 21082. 1.
21CityofReddingv. ShastaCountyLocalAgencyFormationComm'n (1989) 209CAM 1169, 1174. 22 14 CCR§ 15051( c).
23SeeFullerton Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. StateBoard of Educ. (1982) 32 C3d 779, 795n15. 24 Pub. Resources Code § 21065(c); seeBozung v. LAFCO( 1975) 13 C3d 263 (court held that approval of annexation was CEQA project becauseit involved issuanceof entitlement to a personby a public agency).
25Staff Report, Attachments 1 and 2.
26 14 CCR§ 15051(b); Eller Media Co. v. Cmty. RedevelopmentAgency (2003) 108Cal.AppAth 25, 38; see also, PRC§ 21067.
27 14 CCR§ 15051( b)( 1) ( emphasis added).
28 14 CCR§ 15051( b)( 2).
7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

The properties require prezoning, solidifying its mandated role as lead agency.29 The City must therefore assume the role of CEQA lead agency for the Projects and prepare a new or revised DEIR which analyzes the changes in the Projects resulting from annexation and City land use entitlements, as well as the unresolved environmental and public health impacts addressed by EBRRD and other comments on the original DEIR. 30
B. The City Must Prepare a New DEIR, or Revise and Recirculate the Arroyo Lago DEIR, to Analyze Both Projects and Comply with CEQA Recirculation of an EIR prior to certification is addressed in CEQA Section 21092. 1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. 5. " When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 ... but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to section21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections21104and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report." 31
Significant new information" may include changes in the project, a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed or a situation where the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and commentwere precluded.32In Mountain Lion, the court held that the crucial stage in which the public has the opportunity to meaningfully participate and commenton an environmental documentis beforethe final document is issued. The court therefore refused to allow the analysis in the draft environmental document to be " bolstered by a document that was never circulated for public comment," 33stating:

Only at the stagewhen the draft EIR is circulated can the public and outside agencies have the opportunity to analyze a proposal and submit comments. 29Staff Report, p. 14 of 18.
30 Planning& ConservationLeaguev. Dept of WaterRes. (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 892, 906-07(Where wrongpublicagencyassumesroleofleadagency,theentireCEQAprocessis tainted,compelling invalidation of EIR and a fresh start with the appropriate lead agency). 31 PRC § 21092. 1.
32 14 CCR§ 15088. 5.
33 Mountain Lion Coal. v. Fish & Game Com., 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043, 1052. 7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

No such right exists upon issuance of a final EID unless the project is substantially modified, or new information becomes available. 34 In Laurel Heights the Supreme Court explained that Section 21092. 1 favors EIR recirculation prior to certification. The Court stated:

Section 21092. 1 was intended to encourage meaningful public comment. ( See State Bar Rep., supra, at p. 28.) Therefore, new information that demonstrates that an EIR commented upon by the public was so fundamentally and basically inadequate or conclusory in nature that public comment was in effect meaningless triggers recirculation under section 21092. 1. ( See, Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com., supra, 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043.) 35
Here, the DEIR for the Arroyo Lago Project analyzed a fundamentally different project than the version of the Project currently proposedfor annexation and entitlement by the City. These changes in the Arroyo Lago Project require a revised DEIR. As explained in EBRRD' s DEIR comments, the County' s DEIR also impermissibly piecemealedits analysis of the Projectsby omitting the East Lakes Project from the DEIR. The Applicants' concurrent proposals for annexation and City approval of both Projectsfurther demonstratestheir interrelationship as part of a single developmentproposalwhich must be analyzedin a single EIR. Due to these major omissions in the County' s DEIR, the public was denied an opportunity to meaningfully review and comment on the Projects. The City must prepare a new DEIR, or revise and recirculate the Arroyo Lago DEIR, to comply with CEQA and analyze these changes to the Projects in a single CEQA document.

As demonstrated in East Bay Resident' s comments on the DEIR, the concurrent development of the Projects also results in significant, unmitigated environmental effects with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, cumulative impacts, and land use impacts which the DEIR did not adequatelyanalyzeor mitigate. Theseimpactsmustbeanalyzedandmitigatedin a revised DEIR beforethe Projectscan proceedwith the annexation City entitlement processes.
34 Mountain Lion Coal. v. Fish & GameCom., 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043, 1052. (EID is essentially the sameas an EIR sincethe Dept. of Fish and Gamehad a certified environmental program). 35Laurel Heights Impr. Assn. v. Reg. of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112. 1130. 7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

1. The Revised EIR Must Include a Revised Project Description Which Incorporates Both Projects
CEQA prohibits piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of a project.36A project under CEQA refers to the "whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." 37 CEQA's prohibition on piecemealing ensures that environmental considerations are not diluted by dividing a large project into smaller ones, each with a minimal potential impact, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.38 Public agencies must interpret the project broadly to encompass the whole of the action and its environmental impacts. 39
The Arroyo Lago Project and East Lakes Project share a common property owner and would occupy the same parcel, APN 946-4634-2. Although the projects are being processedunder separateapplications, they represent a single combined use of the Project sites owned by a common entity. The two projects are to be developed simultaneously, on common property under common ownership. The Projects constitute a single development proposal which will result in overlapping and potentially significant individual and cumulative environmental impacts.

These impacts must be analyzed in a single EIR to fully address the environmental consequences of the projects and avoid artificially reducing their impacts.

The Applicant' s two projects proposed on APN 946-4634-2 are similar to the piecemealeddevelopmentsoverturned by the court in Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v.

South ValleyArea Planning Commission.40There, the developer, Arviv, received permits to developthree houses, then additional two houses, a categorical exemption to developtwo additional housesacrossthe street, and a mitigated negative declaration to build 14 additional houses on an adjacent street. 41 The City of Los Angeles came to realize the cumulative effects from what was in reality a developmentprojectfor 21hillside housesthat requiredenvironmentalreviewof 36Laurel Heights ImprovementAssn., 47 Cal. 3d at 396; SeeBozung v. LocalAgencyFormation Com. 1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283- 284; See also Pub. Res. Code§ 21002. 1( d). 37 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378( a).
38Id.; SeealsoCityofSanteev. Countyof SanDiego (1989) 214Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452; Citizens Assn.forSensibleDevelopmentofBishopAreav. CountyofInyo (1985) 172Ca1.App.3d151, 165. 39 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378.
40( 2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336.
41Arviv Enters., Inc. v. SouthArea Planning Comm'n( 2002) 101CA4th 1333, 1336. 7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

the project as a whole.42The City required that an EIR be prepared and certified that covered all 21 proposed houses, even those already constructed, due to their violations of law. 43 The court held that the piecemeal review " failed to take into account the cumulative impacts from the overall project, which... warranted full environmental review." 44 The court held that this approach violated CEQA because Arviv was attempting to goaround the rules by developingin a piecemealfashion in order to take advantage of environmental exemptions..." 45 Similarly here, the County has impermissibly piecemealed its environmental review of this Project from the East Lakes Project. The City, in annexing the Project sites has a duty to remedy this error in a new or revised DEIR.

The East Lakes Project will add an additional 357 single- family, age- restricted homes and 88 age-restricted assisted living units, for a total of 445 units, and associated facilities. Construction and operation of the East Lakes Project at the same location as the Arroyo Lago Project will substantially increase the localized and regional air quality impacts, transportation impacts, GHG, hazards and other impacts generated by the projects. The combined effects of the two projects must be analyzedtogether in a single EIR to accurately assesstheir severity and ensurethat proposedmitigation measuresreducethe combinedlocal and regional effects of the projects to the greatest extent feasible.

2. The Revised EIR Must Analyze Whether the City' s Services Can Adequately Serve the Project Sites
The Arroyo Lago DEIR described the instant annexation proposal as a Project alternative which was " determined to be infeasible." 46As a result, the DEIR failed to analyze whether the Projects could be adequately served by the City' s publicandutility services, includingbut not limited to fire andwater, in the event of annexation. The City must prepare a new or revised DEIR to address these impacts.
42 Id.
43Aruiu,supra, at 1346. [ThefiveexistinghousesexceededtheheightrestrictionsoftheMulholland ScenicParkwaySpecificPlan,theHillsideordinance,aswellastheheightlimitationsspecifiedin the permits issued by the City.]
44 Id. at 1342.
45 Id at 1340.
46DEIR, p. 6- 25.
7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

The City of Pleasantonprovided commentson the Arroyo Lago Project which stated that, " In an event the project site will need to be served by Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department ( LPFD), the proposed plan shall provide a LPFD truck exhibit and a truck radius exhibit for the entire development site." 47 The record for the DEIR, contains no such evidence that the Project will be adequately served by Fire services. The record therefore lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project will be adequately served by City Fire services. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR to adequately analyze the Project' s fire safety services.

The DEIR also did not provide substantial evidence that the Project can be adequately servedby existing water supply. Rather, evidencein the record demonstrates that the existing water supply from the local water district may not be adequate to serve the Arroyo Lago Project, let alone the East Lakes Project. In 2022, the California Water Service Company Livermore District (" Cal Water") provided the County with a will- serveletter for the Arroyo Lago Project basedon the Project' s plan to drill wells on site and equip them with necessary water storage and boosterpumps.48However, Cal Water retracted the will- serveletter in October 2023, explaining:

Cal Water has not evaluated the forecasted water system needs of this development, the ability of Zone 7 to serve this new development under the existing Cal Water contract, nor conducteda review of the water system evaluation of this new development. As such, all claims in the documentation regarding the availability of water for the developmenthave not been validated by Cal Water, the future water purveyor for this development.49 The Cal Water letter stated that, as of October 2023, Cal Water was working with USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P. to develop a Letter of Agreement (" LOX') to providewater serviceto theArroyoLagoProject, but that the LOAwasstill under 47 Email from Melinda Denis
PlanningandPermitCenterManager, DeputyDirectorofCommunityDevelopment, Cityof PleasantontoAubreyRose, DevelopmentPlanningDivisionAlamedaCountyPlanningDepartment re: PLN2022- 00193— Arroyo Largo Residential Project: A proposal to subdivide an existing approximately26.6-acresite,knownasParcelA ofParcelMapNo. 11230,intoatotalof204parcels consistingof20commonlyownedparcelsand194individuallyownedparcelsfortheconstructionof 194-unit single- family residential units. ( Feb. 10, 2023). 48 Exhibit E— Letter from California Water Service to Alameda County re Will Serve TractorParcelMapNo:PM 11230Owner: USLPleasantonLakes, L.P. (11/11/2022). 49Exhibit F, LetterfromCaliforniaWaterServiceto AlamedaCountyre CaseNo.:PLN2022-00193 10/ 12/ 2023)
7357- 016i
February 4, 2025

negotiation. 50 The addition of the East Lakes Project will substantially expand the water supply needs at the Project site, and may require significant changes to the LOA Cal Water is considering. The Projects' cumulative water supply needs must bequantifiedanddiscussedin a singleWaterSupplyAssessmentaspart ofthe revised DEIR.

3. The Revised EIR Must Analyze the Projects' Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts
Under CEQA a project has significant impacts if it "[ v] iolate[ s] any air quality standard or contribute[s] substantially to an existing or projectedair quality violation" or"[ e]xpose[ s] sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations." 51 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (` BAAQMD") maintains thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants that are to be used in determining the significanceof a project's air quality impacts under CEQA.52The DEIR acknowledgesthat the proposedproject would result in a significant impact if it exceeds the BAAQMD construction and operational significance thresholds, 53but concludes that Project emissions would not exceed any of these thresholds. 54 East Bay Residents' air quality and public health expert consultant, SWAPE, reviewed the DEIR's air quality analysis and performed an independent model of the Arroyo Lago Project' s construction emissions. 55 SWAPE concluded that the DEIR underestimated the Arroyo Lago Project' s construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2. 5 by artificially extending the construction phase lengths without proper justification. SWAPE also concluded that the DEIR failed to adequatelyanalyzeemissionsassociatedwith materialhaulingandassociated truck trips. Finally, SWAPE explained that the DEIR relied on modeling basedon Tier 4 Final engine tier, but the DEIRs' mitigation measures only required Tier 4 Interim, which has higher emissions than Tier 4 Final. These significant errors and 50 Id.
51 CEQA Appendix G.
52BayAreaAir QualityManagementDistrict2022CEQAGuidelinesThresholdsofSignificant 2022), available at: https:// www. baaqmd. gov/—/ media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa- guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2- pdf.pdVrev=a976830cce0c4a6bb624b020f72d25b3&sc_lang=en. 53DEIR, p. 3.2-36; 3.2-38.
54DEIR, p. 3.2- 43.
55SWAPE Comments, pp. 2- 13.
7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

omissions resulted in substantial underestimation of the Arroyo Lago Project' s air emissions. When properly calculated, SWAPEfound that the Project's construction andoperationalair pollutantimpactswouldbesignificantandremainunmitigated.

The County has not respondedto public commentson the DEIR, and has not updated the DEIR' s air quality analysis to correct these errors. SWAPE' s comments continue to demonstrate that the Arroyo Lago Project would result in potentially significant unmitigated air quality impacts.56A revised EIR must be circulated to provide an accurateconstruction-related air quality analysis.

4. The Revised EIR Must Analyze the Projects' Potentially Significant Hazards Impacts
The DEIR failed to include any analysis regarding the potentially significant hazards and water quality impact of the Projects associatedwith perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (" PFAS"). The State Water Resources Control Board' s maps show that the Project sites are adjacent to "Drinking Water Wells with Orders for PFAS Monitoring" for Well 08, PS CodeCA0110008_004_004.57 The Water Agency Zone7 commentedon the NOP that " Zone7 has particular concernsaboutpotentialuseofthe Amazonwell, dueto issueswith perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances ( PFAS). Zone 7 requests that the EIR clearly state the water sourcesproposedto be usedfor the Project. If these include the Amazon well, or other sourceswith potential PFAS concerns, then the EIR should thoroughlyevaluatepotentialimpactsdueto PFAScontamination."58TheDEIR failed to analyzethe potential PFAS contamination within the Project vicinity.

In 2019, pursuantto an orderfromthe CaliforniaStateWaterResource ControlBoardDivisionofDrinking Water, the City begantestingits waterfor PFAS including, but not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (" PFOA') and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (" PFOS"). 59During this testing, the City discovered 56SWAPEComments,p. 4; Comtys.foraBetterEnv't v. Cal.ResourcesAgency(2002) 103 Cal.AppAth98, 110-111 (whenimpactexceedsCEQAsignificancethreshold, agencymustdisclosein theEIRthattheimpactissignificant); Schenckv. CountyofSonoma(2011) 198Cal.AppAth949, 960; CBEv. SCAQMD, 48CalAthat 327(impactissignificantbecauseexceeds"established significance threshold for NOx ... constitute[ing] substantialevidencesupportingafairargumentfor a significant adverse impact").
57California Water Boards, California PFAS Investigation Site Map, 58DEIR,AppendixA: EIRNoticingandPublicInvolvement,pdfp. 59of 208. 59httRs://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/rei)ortsndf/1687827492.ndf. 7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

detectable levels of PFOS and PFOA, among other PFAS chemicals, in its water supply wells. The City filed a lawsuit against 3M for its release, use, and storage of PFAS products at and/or in the vicinity of the City' s water supplies. 60 The complaint alleged that 3M allowed PFOS, PFOA, and their chemical precursors to enter the environment, and migrate through the soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the City' s property groundwater wells. The City and 3M a entered into a settlement agreement to cover the substantial costs of removing these " forever chemicals" from the City' s water supply or finding alternate water supply sources.

In September 2022, the Pleasanton City Council directed City staff to suspend the evaluation of the PFAS Treatment and Wells Rehabilitation Project in order to evaluate water supply alternatives that could replace the water previously supplied by the City' s existing groundwater wells. The City has effectively abandoned efforts to remediate wells due to PFAS contamination, and instead considered other alternatives: " two alternatives involved water treatment solutions and one examined the purchase of water from Zone 7 to meet all City drinking water needs. The final option was the construction of two new groundwater wells located within the Bernal subbasin in an area located outside of the influence of PFAS contamination that would cost- effectively deliver to City residents high- quality, reliable drinking water needs each year." 61
The PFAS within the groundwater beneath the Project sites remains and it does not appear the City is making any current efforts to remediate it. The DEIR' s failure to mention, or include any substantive analysis, of the significant PFAS contamination beneath the Project sites resulted in a failure to inform the public of the Projects' potentially significant environmental impacts. The Staff Report addresses but does not resolve the issue of existing PFAS contamination beneath the Project sites. 62 The City must prepare a new DEIR, or revise and recirculate the Arroyo Lago DEIR, to accurately measure and mitigate the PFAS contamination on and adjacent to the Project sites.
60 Id..
61City of Pleasanton,News, PleasantonCity Council Approves Two New Water Wells to Meet Long- Term Drinking Water Needs( Oct. 17, 2023), available at:
http% Hwww cityofpleasantonca Gov/news/pleasanton- city- council- approves- two- new- water- wellsto- meetnlone- term- drinking- water- nee ds/.
62Staff Report, p. 7 of 18.
7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

5. The Revised EIR Must Analyze the Projects' Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The Arroyo Lago Project alone results in significant GHG impacts. These impacts will be significantly increased by GHG emissions from the East Lakes Project. The DEIR concluded that both GHG emissions and transportation impacts from the Arroyo Lago were significant and unavoidable, and failed to analyze GHG and transportation impacts from the East Lakes Project. 63 The DEIR asserted that, even with the implementation of mitigation measures MM GHG- 1, GHG- 2, and MM TRANS- 2a and TRANS- 2b, the Arroyo Lago Project would still result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. SWAPE confirmed that the DEIR' s conclusion that GHG impacts are unavoidable was not supported by substantial evidence.

SWAPE' s comments explained that there are additional feasible mitigation measures which could further reduce the Projects' GHG emissions impacts. The DEIR therefore failed to consider additional measures which could reduce the Project' s GHG emissions impacts to the greatest extent feasible, in violation of CEQA. 64
CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid a project' s potentially significant environmental impacts and describe those mitigation measures in the EIR. 65 The lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings regarding a project unless the administrative record demonstrates that it has adopted all feasible mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 66 SWAPE provided a list of potential GHG mitigation measures that may apply to the Project. 67 The City must consider these and any other available feasible GHG mitigation measures that can further reduce the Projects' significant GHG emissions, and incorporate additional GHG mitigation measures in a new or revised DEIR circulated for public review and comment.
63DEIR, p. ES- 18- 19; ES- 26.
64SWAPE Comments, p. 10.
65 PRC §§§ 21002, 21081( a) 21100( b)( 3); CEQA Guidelines§ 15126. 4. 66Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. ( 2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 867, 883. 67SWAPE Comments, pp. 11- 12.
7357- 016j
February 4, 2025

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the City must assume the role of lead agency and prepare a single new or revised DEIR for the Projects in order to comply with CEQA. The City must conduct environmental review reflecting its independent judgment and provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Projects' potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require a new DEIR be prepared, or revised and recirculated, for public review before the City can move forward with the proposed annexation and entitlement approvals for the Projects.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects.

Sincerely,,
Kelilah D. Federman
KDF: Ijl
7357- 016j
EXHIBIT 1

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
CHRISTINA M. CARO ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THOMAS A. ENSLOW 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814- 4721 RICHARD M. FRANCO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080- 7037 TEL: ( 916) 444- 6201 ANDREW J. GRAF
T
FAX: ( 916) 444- 6209
ANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON TEL: ( 650) 589- 1660
RACHAEL E. KOSS FAX: ( 650) 589- 5062
AIDAN P. MARSHALL kfederman@adamsbroadwell. com
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel November 8, 2024
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Aubrey Rose, Planner III Albert Lopez, Director
Alameda County Planning Planning Department
Department Alameda County
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111 224 W. Winton Avenue, Rm 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Hayward, CA 94544
Email: Aubrev. rose@acgov. org Email: Albert. Lopez@acgov. org; PlanningInfo@acgov. org
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Arroyo Lago Residential Project ( SCH No. 2023050339)
Dear Ms. Rose and Mr. Lopez:

On behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (" EBRRD"), we submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (" DEIR") prepared by Alameda County (" County") for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project SCH No. 2023050339) (" Project") proposed by 330 Land Company, LLC Applicant").

The Project described in the DEIR proposes construction of 194 market- rate single- family homes, with 49 accessory dwelling units. The approximately 26. 6- acre site would be developed with 7.3 dwelling units per gross acre for approximately 694 residents. The existing four parcels within the Project site would be reconfigured into 194 residential lots and 21 open space and park parcels. The Project would also include several off- site improvements at different locations throughout APNs 946- 4634- 002 and 946- 1350- 3- 10 including the development of a 1-acre sewer treatment plant, a 0. 4-acre water storage and booster pump facility with a 400, 000gallon capacity, a 2. 5acre recycled water storage facility with a 900,000 gallon capacity, approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields, and two bioretention areaswith treatment areassizedat approximately 0. 9-acre and 0.03-acre, respectively. Proposed Project entitlements 7357- 013acp
jprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

include approval of a site development permit and building permits and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

The Arroyo Lago Project site consists of three Assessor' s Parcel Numbers APNs")- APN 946- 4634- 1 ( the residential site) as well as APN 946- 4634- 2 and APN 946- 1350- 3- 10 ( the off- site improvements),' owned by USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. and Lionstone U. S. Land One L. P. 2 On June 4, 2024, USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P submitted an SB 330 application for the Senior East County Lakes Busch Road Project, a proposed Builders Remedy3 project to be located at parcel APN 946-4634- 2 (the same parcel proposed for the Arroyo Lago Project' s offsite improvements). 4 The Senior East County Lakes Project proposes to develop a 61. 6-acre southwestern portion of the parcel with senior housing ( age restricted for 55 years and older) consisting of 357 single- family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/or assisted living units ( 569 total units). 5 The Senior East County Lakes Project proposes a high density independent/ assisted living facility which will include approximately 1,822 parking spaces and an internal circulation system to accommodate bike and vehicular travel, as well as ingress and egress to the Property. 6 The Senior East County Lakes Project also proposes a 6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse amenity space for residents to congregate and dine, as well as an open space courtyard and activity space for outdoor recreational uses ( e.g., potentially an amphitheater, bocceball court, pool and pool house) on a 6.5-acre portion of the site.? The Arroyo Lago Project and Senior East County Lakes Project share a common property owner, would undergo concurrent development and operation, and would occupy the same parcel, APN 946- 4634- 2. Nevertheless, the 1County of Alameda, Arroyo Lago Residential Project Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report( May 12, 2023) ( hereinafter" NOP"), available at https:// cecianet.oi)r.ca.gov/2023050339/ Attachment/ Blt3xk( last visited 9/6/24). 2See NOP Exhibit 6, identifying USL Pleasanton Lakes as owner of parcels APN 946- 1350-3-10 and APN 946- 4634- 2.
3 The Builder' s Remedy, Gov. Code § 65589. 5(d)(5), prohibits a local government from denying a housing development that includes 20% lower- income housing or 100% moderate- income housing that does not conform to the local government' s underlying zoning, if the local government has not adopted a compliant housing element. Builders Remedy projects are subject to CEQA review. 4 Exhibit C— Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 Preliminary Application Form APN 946-434-002 June 4, 2024); Exhibit D— Letter from Holland& Knight to Albert Lopez, Planning Director Alameda County, Re Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy" Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946- 4634- 002( June 4, 2024). 5USL Pleasanton Lakes. L. P., Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 Preliminary Application for Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946- 4634- 002 ( June 4, 2024). 6 Letter from Holland& Knight USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. to Planning Director Albert Lopez, Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy' Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946-4634-002( June 4, 2024).
7 Id.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

County failed to analyze the impacts of the Senior East County Lakes Project in the DEIR as part of the overall Arroyo Lago Project development proposal.

EBRRD has reviewed the DEIR and technical appendices with its experts and concludes that the DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA"). 8 The DEIR improperly piecemeals its description of the Project by omitting a discussion or impact analysis of the Busch Road Project, lacks an adequate description of baseline conditions, and has significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, and noise impacts. The Project may also result in significant, unmitigated hazards, water supply and odor impacts which are not evaluated in the DEIR. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to correct these errors and omissions.

EBRRD' s comments on air quality, public health, and greenhouse gas GHG") impacts were prepared with the assistance of air quality and GHG expert Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. of Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises, whose comments are included in the SWAPE Comments (" SWAPE Comments"). The SWAPE Comments and Dr. Rosenfeld' s expert curriculum vitae (" CV") are attached hereto as Exhibit A. SWAPE found that the DEIR significantly underestimates construction air quality impacts, and fails to adequately mitigate the Project' s significant GHG impacts. Moreover, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project with the concurrent Senior East County Lakes Project on the Project site proposed by the Applicant.

EBRRD' s comments on noise and vibration were prepared with the assistance of Ani Toncheva, acoustics, noise, and vibration expert of Wilson Ihrig.

Ms. Toncheva' s Comments (" Toncheva Comments") and Ms. Toncheva' s CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Ms. Toncheva' s comments identify significant and unmitigated noise impacts from construction of the Project. Moreover, the sewer treatment plant element of the Project will result in significant operational noise impacts to sensitive receptors in the community and at the Senior East County Lakes Project. The attached expert reports are incorporated by reference into this comment letter as if fully set forth herein and must be considered part of the record for this Project. East Bay Residents reserves the right to submit supplemental comments at any later hearings and proceedings related to the Project' 9 a Pub. Resources Code (" PRC") §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs(" CCR" or" CEQA Guidelines") §§ 15000 et seq.
9 Gov. Code§ 65009( b); PRC§ 21177( a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control u. Bakersfield Bakersfield")( 2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199- 1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. ( 1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
7357- 013acp
L, printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The association includes International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, their members and families, and other individuals that live and/ or work in Alameda County.

Individual members of East Bay Residents and its affiliated labor organizations who live, work, recreate and raise their families in Alameda County.

They would be directly affected by the Project' s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

Accordingly, they will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. East Bay Residents has an interest in enforcing 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.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the DEIR satisfies. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 10 CEQA requires that an agency analyze potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR. 11 The EIR should not rely on scientifically outdated information to assessthe significance of impacts, and should result from " extensive research and information gathering," including consultation with state and federal agencies, local officials, and the interested public. 12 To be adequate, the EIR should evidence the lead agency's good faith effort at full disclosure. 13 The EIR has been described as " an environmental ` alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental 10 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. ( a)( 1).
11 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 12 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm. (" Berkeley Jets") ( 2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 1344, 1367.; Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council( 1989) 215 Cal.App. 3d 612, 620.
13 CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; seealso Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California(" Laurel Heights I")( 1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 406. 7357- 013acp
40printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." 14 " Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." 15 Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. 16The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." 17 If a project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon a finding that it has " eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible," and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are " acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. 18
While the courts review an EIR using an " abuse of discretion" standard, " the reviewing court is not to `uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference." 19 As the courts have explained, " a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs " if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision- making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
1120 "
The ultimate inquiry, as case
law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ` to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project."' 21 As these comments will demonstrate, the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and may not be used as the basis for approving the Project.

It fails in significant aspects to perform its function as an informational document that is meant " to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the 14County of Inyo v. Yorty( 1973) 32 Cal.App. 3d 795, 810. 15Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors( 1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564( citations omitted). 16 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. ( a)( 2)-( 3); Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal. AppAth at 1354. 17 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. ( a)( 2).
18Id., subd. ( b)( 2)( A)-( B).
19Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355( emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California( 1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391409, fn. 12. 20BerkeleyJets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1355; San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife RescueCenterv. County of Stanislaus( 1994) 27 Cal. AppAth 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. ( 1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency( 1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 931, 946.
21Sierra Club v. County of Fresno( 2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 516, quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 405.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

environment" and " to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized." 22
The use of inaccurate and flawed information on which the DEIR bases its conclusions results in underestimated Project impacts. This, in turn, leads to a failure to comply with CEQA' s requirement that an agency mitigate " all significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible, and that any remaining significant environmental impacts are acceptable due to overriding considerations." 23 Mitigation of impacts to the fullest extent feasible requires an agency to accurately quantify the severity of Project impacts. Because the DEIR' s analyses underestimate the severity of the Project' s impacts, the County has failed to comply with CEQA and thus cannot approve the Project based upon the DEIR' s unsupported analyses and conclusions.

CEQA requires recirculation of a DEIR for public review and comment when significant new information must be added to the DEIR following public review, but before certification. 24 The CEQA Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if" the DEIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect." 25 The purpose of recirculation is to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it. 26 Here, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to include analysis of impacts associated with the adjacent Senior East County Lakes Project. 27 The additional information required to analyze the concurrent and cumulative impacts of the two projects on the same assessor parcel, by the same developer, will result in the addition of significant new information to the EIR, necessitating recirculation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. 1. For the reasons detailed herein and in the expert consultant reports attached hereto, the DEIR must be revised to resolve its inadequacies and recirculated for public review and comment.

III. THE DEIR' S PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The DEIR does not meet CEQA' s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. 22Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 391.
23 CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15090, 15091.
24 Pub. Resources Code§ 21092. 1.
26 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088. 5.
26Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey City Bd. of Supervisors( 1981) 122 CalApp3d 813, 822. 27Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm' n( 2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 7357- 013acp
0printed
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

California courts have repeatedly held that " an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." 28 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.29 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project' s impacts and undermining meaningful public review. 30 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description. 31 "
The significance of an accurate project description is manifest, where, as here, cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by filing numerous, serial applications." 32 Further, "[ e] nvironmental considerations can] not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones— each with a minimal potential impact on the environment— which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." 33 Here, the Project is impermissibly piecemealed from the proposed Senior East County Lakes Project on APN 946- 4634- 002, rendering the DEIR' s Project Description inadequate.

A. The DEIR Impermissibly Piecemeals the Project from the Senior East County Lakes Project
CEQA prohibits piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of a project. 34 A project under CEQA refers to the " whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." 35 CEQA' s prohibition on piecemealing ensures that environmental considerations are not diluted by dividing a large project into smaller ones, each with a minimal potential 28Stopthemillenniumhollywood. com v. City of Los Angeles( 2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond ( 2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 85- 89; County of Inyo v.

City of Los Angeles( 3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193. 29 14 CCR§ 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 192- 193.

Sold.
31 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino(" Sundstrom") ( 1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311. 32Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm' n( 2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1345. 33Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. ( 1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283- 284; see also Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo( 1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165( county abused its discretion in adopting negative declarations for each portion of the project because it failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the project as a whole); Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler( 1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 577, 592(" A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole.").
34Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal. 3d at 396; SeeBozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. 1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283- 284; See also Pub. Res. Code§ 21002. 1( d). 35 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378( a).
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

impact, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences. 36 Public agencies must interpret the project broadly to encompass the whole of the action and its environmental impacts. 37
The Senior East County Lakes Project is a proposed housing development project on the Project site, which will result in reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and is currently " Under Review" by Alameda County. 38 The two projects are to be developed simultaneously, on common property under common ownership, and will result in overlapping and potentially significant individual and cumulative environmental impacts which must be analyzed together in a single EIR to fully address the environmental consequences of the projects and avoid artificially reducing their impacts.

On June 4, 2024, USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P submitted an SB 330 application for the Senior East County Lakes, a proposed Builders Remedy39 project to be located at parcel APN 946- 4634- 002 ( the same parcel proposed for the Arroyo Lago Project' s offsite improvements). 40 The Senior East County Lakes Project proposes to develop a 61. 6-acre southwestern portion of the parcel with senior housing ( age restricted for 55 years and older) consisting of 357 single- family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/ or assisted living units ( 569 total units). 41, 42The Senior East County Lakes Project proposes a high density independent/ assisted living facility which will include approximately 1,822 parking spaces and an internal circulation system to accommodate bike and vehicular travel, as well as ingress and egress to the Property. 43 36Id.; See also City of Santee v. County of San Diego ( 1989) 214 Cal.App. 3d 1438, 1452; Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo( 1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165. 37 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378.
38DEIR, p. 3- 7.
39 The Builder' s Remedy, Gov. Code§ 65589. 5( d)( 5), prohibits a local government from denying a housing development that includes 20% lower- income housing or 100% moderate- income housing that does not conform to the local government' s underlying zoning, if the local government has not adopted a compliant housing element. Builders Remedy projects are subject to CEQA review. 40 Exhibit C— Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 Preliminary Application Form APN 946-434- 002 June 4, 2024); Exhibit D— Letter from Holland& Knight to Albert Lopez, Planning Director Alameda County, Re Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy" Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946- 4634- 002 ( June 4, 2024). 41USL Pleasanton Lakes. L. P., Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 Preliminary Application for Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946- 4634- 002( June 4, 2024). 42DEIR, p. 3- 7.
43 Letter from Holland& Knight USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. to Planning Director Albert Lopez, Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy' Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946-4634-002 (June 4, 2024).
7357- 013acp
0printed
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

The DEIR mentions the Senior East County Lakes Project in the Cumulative Projects section and provides that the Senior East County Lakes Project proposes a Gated age-restricted mixed density residential and support services" project which is currently" Under Review" by the County of Alameda. 44 The DEIR provides that the quantity of units will be 569 with 10,000 square feet of support services. 45 The Senior East County Lakes Project also proposes a 6, 000 sq. ft. clubhouse amenity space for residents to congregate and dine, as well as an open space courtyard and activity space for outdoor recreational uses ( e.g., potentially an amphitheater, bocce ball court, pool and pool house) on a 6.5-acre portion of the site. 46 However, the County did not analyze the impacts of the Senior East County Lakes Project in the DEIR pursuant to CEQA. The Senior East County Lakes Project will result in reasonably foreseeable potential environmental impacts, requiring analysis and mitigation concurrently with the instant Project, in a revised and recirculated EIR.

The Arroyo Lago Project and Senior East County Lakes Project share a common property owner and would occupy the same parcel, APN 946- 4634- 2.

Although the projects are being processed under separate applications, they represent a single combined use of the Project sites owned by a common entity.

Combined, the projects would add 763 new residential units and associated uses requiring the construction of new infrastructure and the addition of public services.

The Applicant' s two projects proposed on APN 946- 4634- 2 are similar to the piecemealed developments overturned by the court in Arvin Enterprises, Inc. v.

South Valley Area Planning Commission. 47 There, the developer, Arviv, received permits to develop three houses, then additional two houses, a categorical exemption to develop two additional houses across the street, and a mitigated negative declaration to build 14 additional houses on an adjacent street. 48 The City of Los Angeles came to realize the cumulative effects from what was in reality a development project for 21 hillside houses that required environmental review of the project as a whole. 49 The City required that an EIR be prepared and certified that covered all 21 proposed houses, even those already constructed, due to their 44DEIR, p. 3- 7.
45 Id.
46 Letter from Holland& Knight USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. to Planning Director Albert Lopez, Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy' Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946- 4634- 002 ( June 4, 2024).
47( 2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336.
48Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm n( 2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. 49 Id.
7357- 013acp
10 printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

violations of law. 50 The court held that the piecemeal review " failed to take into account the cumulative impacts from the overall project, which... warranted full environmental review." 51 The court held that this approach violated CEQA because Arviv was attempting to go around the rules by developing in a piecemeal fashion in order to take advantage of environmental exemptions..." 52 Similarly here, the County has impermissibly piecemealed its environmental review of this Project from the Senior East County Lakes Project. The court in Arviv explained that:

This entire case is the direct result of inadequate, or misleading, project descriptions. In other words, it is entirely possible a two- house project— located somewhere other than the steep slopes of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Area— may in fact have a de minimus, or mitigatable, effect on the local environment. However, Arviv never intended a two or three house project. As he admitted at the hearing before the Commission, he always envisioned a 21- house development.

The significance of an accurate project description is manifest, where, as here, cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by filing numerous, serial applications. 53
By the time the Commission made its decision the record before it contained substantial evidence of environmental impacts regarding all the projects. For example, it heard concrete evidence of problems neighboring residents had encountered from construction of the first five homes on Woodstock Road.

Residents and representatives from homeowners associations described mud slides, rockslides, soil erosion and other slope failures which occurred during grading for the constructed homes. The relevant personal observations of these residents alone constitutes substantial evidence of environmental impacts. 54
Here, substantial evidence in the record and from EBRRD' s expert consultants demonstrates that the Arroyo Lago and Senior East County Lakes Project are part of a single overarching development which will result in significant individual and cumulative impacts. The County must prepare a single EIR to address the combined impacts of the Arroyo Lago and Senior East County Lakes 50Arviv, supra, at 1346. [ The five existing houses exceeded the height restrictions of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan, the Hillside ordinance, as well as the height limitations specified in the permits issued by the City.]
51 Id. at 1342.
52 Id at 1340.
53Id. at 1346.
54 Id.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Projects. In particular, the combined environmental and public health impacts from construction and operation of the two projects at the same location are significant and must be analyzed in a single environmental review document to ensure that the full scope of impacts is disclosed and mitigated in compliance with CEQA.

The Senior East County Lakes Project will add an additional 596 new residential units to parcel APN 946- 4634- 2, including a high density independent/ assisted living facility, and associated facilities. The addition of the Senior East County Lakes Project at the same location as the Arroyo Lago Project will substantially increase the localized and regional air quality impacts, transportation impacts, GHG, noise and other impacts generated by the projects.

The combined effects of the two projects must be analyzed together to accurately assess their severity and ensure that proposed mitigation measures reduce the combined local and regional effects of the projects to the greatest extent feasible.

The addition of the Senior East County Lakes Project may also affect the design, location, feasibility, and capacity of the Arroyo Lago Project' s proposed offsite improvements. For example, the Arroyo Lago Project proposes to install a sewage treatment plant on parcel APN 946- 4634- 2 to handle wastewater from the Arroyo Lago residences. The Project design described in the Notice of Preparation NOP") placed the sewage treatment plant far from the proposed residences. 55 However, the Senior East County Lakes Project would place all 596 of its new residences on the same parcel as the sewage treatment plant, which could result in significant air quality and public health impacts to Senior East County Lakes Project residents and users. See DEIR, Exhibit 2- 6a below. 55See NOP, Exhibit 6, Proposed Offsite Improvements.
7357- 013acp
rprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Legend
Proxu sae
Appaeaanau er g wou P" gn opWn At
I
a' 1
aiy
So rce' ging Miallmagery. CBG CMI Engineer t3i2G33

FIRSTCARBON
e '
00 Exhibit 2- 6a
Proposed Off- Site Improvements- Design Option A
DEIR, Exhibit 2- 6a.

The SB 330 Application filed for the Senior East County Lakes Project includes the same APN suggesting aii overlap of the Project' s offsite improvements with the Senior East County Lakes Project components.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

D
N
0 Fft
1r
p
J
1 1 wa
56 The off- site improvement site on APN 946- 4634- 002 will house both the sewer treatment plant and the Senior East County Lakes Project. Sewage and wastewater treatment plants are widely known to generate noxious odors and can release potentially unhealthful chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfide. 57 The East Bay Municipal Utilities District (" EBMUD") acknowledges on its " What' s that Smell?" webpage that " Due to the nature of wastewater, unpleasant odors can be produced at working wastewater treatment plants under certain circumstances." 58 Studies show that living close to a municipal wastewater treatment plant can result in adverse respiratory and health effects. 59 Hydrogen sulfide and sewage- like odors 56 Exhibit C.
57National Library of Medicine, Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Source of Malodorous Substances Hazardous to Health, available at https:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC10093992/( visited 9/ 10/ 24).
58 EBMUD, What' s that Smell?, available at https:// www. ebmud. com/ wastewater/ collection- treatment/ whats- smell( visited 9/ 10/ 24).
59Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Impact on the Quality of Life When Living Close to a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant, available at
https: Honlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/ 10.1155/2016/8467023( visited 9/10/24). 7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

have been released from wastewater treatment plants in the region, prompting site investigations and incident responses, and notice of violations for violations of Air District Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance. 60 The DEIR fails to adequately analyze these odor impacts and concludes, absent substantial evidence, that "[ t] he proposed project would not result in other emissions ( such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people."
The Arroyo Lago and Senior East County Lakes projects must be analyzed in a single EIR which evaluates the combined odor, air quality, and health effects of the proposed placement of hundreds of new residences in close proximity to Arroyo Lago' s new sewage treatment plant, among other combined impacts. The Arroyo Lago Project may also necessitate a revised design to move the proposed sewage treatment plant farther away from the Senior East County Lakes Project residences, as required by the East County Area Plan. 61 The County must prepare an EIR which accurately analyzes both projects, including updating the Project Description to account for development of the Senior East County Lakes Project, any changes in design, capacity, or location that are necessary for required offsite improvements, and all potential project alternatives that may require consideration under CEQA.

IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY CHARACTERIZE THE

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
CEQA requires that a lead agency include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project as they exist at the time environmental review commences. 62 As numerous courts have held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the " real conditions on the ground." 63 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency may assessthe significance of a project' s impacts. 64 Use of the proper baseline is critical to a meaningful assessment of a project' s 60Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Compliance and Enforcement Division INCIDENT REPORT, City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant/ Veolia, Site# A2482, 601 Canal Blvd.

Richmond, California( Dec. 07, 2023), available at:
https:// www. baagmd. gov/—/ media/ files/ compliance- and- enforcement/ incident- reports/ 2023hncidentreport_ veolia_ richmondwwtp_ h2 sodors_ update_ 120723- pd£ pdf? rev= 6d4d944cd4ee44f6a91a3a59e 152c9a0.
61ECAP, p. 71, Policy 302 requires that the" County shall include buffer zones within new residential and sensitive receptor site plans to separate those uses away from freeways, arterials, point sources, and hazardous material locations."
62 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. ( a).
63Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors( 2001) 87 Cal. AppAth 99, 121- 22; City of Carmel- by-the Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors( 1986) 183 Cal.App. 3d 229, 246. 64 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. ( a).
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

environmental impacts. 65 An agency' s failure to adequately describe the existing setting contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting.

Baseline information on which a lead agency relies must be supported by substantial evidence. 66 The CEQA Guidelines define " substantial evidence" as enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion." 67 " Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts ... [ U] nsubstantiated opinion or narrative [ and] evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous ... is not substantial evidence." 68 A. The DEIR Fails to Characterize the Environmental Setting With Respect to Noise
Ms. Toncheva determined that the DEIR' s failure to analyze existing noise conditions Project site and at the proposed Senior East County Lakes Project results in an inadequate baseline against which to analyze the Project' s potentially significant noise impacts. 69 The DEIR' s noise analysis is therefore not supported by substantial evidence for failure to establish an accurate baseline against which to evaluate potential impacts.

Ms. Toncheva emphasizes that "[ t] he Project must conduct properly documented ambient measurements near all sensitive receptors that capture the current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine impact of construction and operational noise." 70 This baseline analysis will constitute significant new information which must be included in a revised EIR, recirculated for public review and scrutiny.
65Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District( 2010) 48 Ca. 4th 310, 320.
66CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.41hat 321 (stating" an agency enjoys the discretion to decide [...] exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence"); see Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova( 2007) 40 CalAth 412, 435.
67 CEQA Guidelines§ 15384.
68 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082. 2( c).
69Toncheva Comments, p. 6.
70Toncheva Comments, p. 6.
7357- 013acp
Oprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

V. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE, QUANTIFY, AND

MITIGATE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA. 71 Challenges to an agency' s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project' s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency' s factual conclusions. 72 In reviewing challenges to an agency' s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will " determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements. 1173
Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference." 74
A. The DEIR Fails to Accurately Quantify Potentially Significant Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health
Under CEQA a project has significant impacts if it "[ v] iolate[ s] any air quality standard or contribute[ s] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation" or "[ e]xpose[ s] sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations." 75 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (" BAAQMD") maintains thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants that are to be used in determining the significance of a project' s air quality impacts under CEQA. 76 The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in a significant impact if 71Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry( 1994) 7 CalAth 1215, 1236. 72Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova( 2007) 40 CalAth 412, 435.
73Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera( 2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 74Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. AppAth at 1355.
75 CEQA Appendix G.
76Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines Thresholds of Significant 2022), available at: https:// www. baaqmd. gov/—/ media/ files/ planning- and- research/ ceqa/ ceqa- guidelines- 2022/ ceqa- guideline s-chapter- 3-thresholds_ final_ v2- pdf. pdPrev= a976830cceOc4a6bb624b020f72 d25b3& sc_lang= en. 7357- 013acp
j printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

it exceeds the BAAQMD construction and operational significance thresholds, 77 but concludes that Project emissions would not exceed any of these thresholds. 78 SWAPE reviewed the DEIR' s air quality analysis and performed an independent model of the Project' s construction emissions. 79 SWAPE concludes that the DEIR underestimates the Project' s construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2. 5 by artificially extending the construction phase lengths without proper justification. SWAPE concludes that the DEIR failed to adequately analyze emissions associated with material hauling and associated truck trips. The DEIR relies on modeling based on Tier 4 Final engine tier, but the DEIRs' mitigation measures only require Tier 4 Interim, which has higher emissions than Tier 4 Final.

These significant errors and omissions result in a severe underestimation of the Project' s air emissions. When properly calculated, Project construction and operational air pollutant impacts will be significant and remain unmitigated.

SWAPE' s comments demonstrate that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not identified or mitigated in the DEIR. 80 Therefore, the DEIR' s statement that construction emissions are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. 81 A revised EIR should be circulated to provide an adequate construction- related air quality analysis. i. The DEIR Underestimates Construction Emissions
The DEIR estimates the Project' s air pollution emissions using the CalEEMod" modeling program, which allows users to input project- specific information supported by substantial evidence. 82 The modeling program' s calculations for the Project are generated as " output files" that reveal what inputs and parameters were used. Any deviations from the " default values" in the model must include a written description to justify why a different value was selected. 83 77DEIR, p. 3.2-36; 3. 2- 38.
78DEIR, p. 3.2-43.
79SWAPE Comments, pp. 2- 13.
80SWAPE Comments, p. 4; Comtys. for a Better Env' t v. Cal. Resources Agency ( 2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 110-111 (when impact exceeds CEQA significance threshold, agency must disclose in the EIR that the impact is significant); Schenck v. County of Sonoma( 2011) 198 Cal.AppAth 949, 960; CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 CalAth at 327( impact is significant because exceeds" established significance threshold for NOx ... constitute[ ing] substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact").
81DEIR, p. I- 14.
82SWAPE Comments p. 2.
83SWAPE Comments p. 2.
7357- 013acp
t^ sprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Following their review of the Project' s CalEEMod output files, SWAPE finds that the DEIR failed to account for emissions generated by material import and export from the Project site, and relied on input values that were inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project' s reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide (" NOx"), exhaust PM10 and exhaust PM2. 5 emissions associated with Project construction were underestimated. 84 As SWAPE shows, the DEIR' s conclusions are not supported by the evidence because they rely on a CalEEMod model that underestimates emissions and on mitigation measures that are unverified and unenforceable.

SWAPE concludes that the DEIR fails to accurately characterize the Project' s construction length resulting in a significant underestimation of the Project' s air pollutant emissions. 85 The DEIR includes unsubstantiated construction phase length in the modeling. 86The DEIR' s construction air quality modeling therefore underestimates the peak daily emissions associated with construction and is not supported by substantial evidence. 87
Further, the DEIR provides that "[ a]ccording to the applicant- provided information, the grading would not lead to significant import or export material.

Material movement would be limited to an off- site location, which is within 1 mile of the residential project site. 1188The DEIR states that import and export of grading material would be limited to an off- site location. 89 But the DEIR' s air quality modeling relies on CalEEMod inputs that provide that there will be zero cubic yards of material imported and exported from the Project site associated with Site Preparation, Grading, or Paving. 90 The air quality modeling associated with Construction Earthmoving Activities" is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence. 91 SWAPE concludes that "[ t] he inclusion of material import and export within the model is essential for accurately calculating emissions generated from material movement, which encompasses truck loading and unloading, as well as additional hauling truck trips." 92 By failing to include the amount of material import required for Project construction, the model has underestimated the Project' s construction- related emissions. 93
84SWAPE Comments, p. 4.
85Id. at 3.
86 Id.
87 Id.
88DEIR, p. 3. 2-46.
89 Id.
90DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, GreenhouseGas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 78. 91 Id. at 117.
92SWAPE Comments, p. 5.
93SWAPE Comments, p. 5.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

By failing to account for the total amount of material import and export that will be needed during Project construction, the Project' s fugitive PM10 and PM2. 5 emissions and mobile- source emissions are also greatly underestimated. 94 These errors and omissions of basic input data from the DEIR' s air quality model render the results of the DEIR' s air quality analysis artificially low and inaccurate. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately calculate and mitigate the Project' s significant air quality impacts.
ii. The DEIR' s Air Quality and GHG Modeling Relies on Nonbinding Measures to Artificially Reduce Air Emissions
The DEIR includes mitigation measure (" MM") AIR- 3 which requires:

Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant and/ or construction contractor shall prepare a construction operations plan that, during construction activities, requires all off- road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower to meet particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 interim engines. 1195
The DEIR' s air quality modeling, though, relies on Tier 4 final engines to purportedly reduce air quality impacts to less than significant levels. Tier 4 Interim equipment has higher emission levels than Tier 4 Final equipment. 96 Therefore, by modeling construction emissions assuming a full Tier 4 Final equipment fleet, the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts analyses fail to account for higher emissions that may occur because of the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment. 97
Additionally, while MM AIR- 3 specifies that the measure applies to " off- road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower," a review of the CalEEMod output files by SWAPE reveals that Tier 4 Final emissions standards are applied to equipment with lower horsepower. 98
Specifically, the DEIR' s air quality and GHG
analysis applies these standards to excavators, welders, and rollers, all of which all have horsepower ratings below 50.99 The air quality and GHG analysis in the DEIR is therefore not supported by substantial evidence and emissions associated with 94 Id.
95DEIR, p. 3. 2-55.
96SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
97SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
98SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
99SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
7357- 013acp
ro printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

excavators, welders, and rollers will be more significant than analyzed in the DEIR. 100
Moreover, DEIR Appendix B provides, " Several equipment are adjusted to be electric as a common construction practice. Number of forklift, generator sets, tractors, and welders are increased to 5 each day to account for overlapped construction during building construction phase." 101The DEIR provides that electric welders and air compressors would be utilized. 102 But the DEIR does not require that welders or air compressors be electric. Under the DEIR' s mitigation plan, the applicant is therefore free to utilize non-electric equipment, including welders or air compressors. SWAPE concludes that the DEIR' s modeling therefore underestimates peak daily emissions associated with construction and is not supported by substantial evidence. 103 The daily emissions associated with construction will therefore be more significant than analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately quantify and mitigate significant construction air quality impacts.
iii. The DEIR Fails to Include an Operational Health Risk Assessment The Alameda County General Plan requires preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for projects that generate substantial toxic air contaminant (" TAC") emissions within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors or for sensitive receptor uses proposed to be located within 1,000 feet of an existing major source of toxic air contaminants. The Project' s sewer treatment plant could emit Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs), Hydrogen Sulfide ( 112S), Ammonia ( NH3), Methane ( CH4), but the DEIR fails to quantify these potential emissions. Noxious emissions from the sewer treatment plant would directly adversely affect residents on the Project site and residents at the Senior East County Lakes Project. An operational health risk assessment should be prepared to quantify the Project' s impacts to public health from the development and operation of the sewer treatment plant.

B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Potentially Significant Hazards Impacts
The DEIR fails to include any analysis whatsoever regarding the potentially significant hazards and water quality impact of the Project associated with perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (" PFAS"). The State Water 100SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
101DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, GreenhouseGas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 93. 102DEIR, p. 3.2- 25.
103SWAPE Comments, p. 7.
7357- 013acp
Coprinted on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Resources Control Board' s maps show that the Project site is adjacent to " Drinking Water Wells with Orders for PFAS Monitoring" for Well 08, PS Code CA01 10008004004. 104
The Water Agency Zone 7 commented on the NOP that " Zone 7 has particular concerns about potential use of the Amazon well, due to issues with perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances ( PFAS). Zone 7 requests that the EIR clearly state the water sources proposed to be used for the Project. If these include the Amazon well, or other sources with potential PFAS concerns, then the EIR should thoroughly evaluate potential impacts due to PFAS contamination." 105 The DEIR fails to analyze the potential PFAS contamination within the Project vicinity.

In 2019, pursuant to an order from the California State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water, the City of Pleasanton (" City") began testing its water for PFAS including, but not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA') and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (" PFOS"). 106During this testing, the City discovered detectable levels of PFOS and PFOA, among other PFAS chemicals, in its water supply wells. The City filed a lawsuit against 3M for its release, use, and storage of PFAS products at and/or in the vicinity of the City' s water supplies. 107 The complaint alleges that 3M allowed PFOS, PFOA, and their chemical precursors to enter the environment, and migrate through the soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the City' s property groundwater wells. The City and 3M have entered into a settlement agreement to cover the substantial costs of removing these " forever chemicals" from the City' s water supply or finding alternate water supply sources.

In September 2022, the Pleasanton City Council directed City staff to suspend the evaluation of the PFAS Treatment and Wells Rehabilitation Project in order to evaluate water supply alternatives that could replace the water previously supplied by the City' s existing groundwater wells. The City has effectively abandoned efforts to remediate wells due to PFAS contamination, and instead considered other alternatives: " two alternatives involved water treatment solutions and one examined the purchase of water from Zone 7 to meet all City drinking water needs. The final option was the construction of two new groundwater wells located within the Bernal subbasin in an area located outside of the influence of 104California Water Boards, California PFAS Investigation Site Map, 105DEIR, Appendix A: EIR Noticing and Public Involvement, pdf p. 59 of 208. 106https:// www. paloaltoonline. com/media/ reRorts pdf/ 1687827492. pdf. 107Id.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

PFAS contamination that would cost-effectively deliver to City residents high- quality, reliable drinking water needs each year." los
The PFAS within the groundwater beneath the Project site remains and it does not appear the City will make any effort to remediate it. The County' s failure to make any mention, or include any substantive analysis in the DEIR, of the significant PFAS contamination beneath the Project site is a dereliction of the County' s duty to inform the public of the Project' s potentially significant environmental impacts. The County must revise and recirculate the DEIR to accurately measure and mitigate the PFAS contamination on the Project site and adjacent to the Project site.

C. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when " feasible" by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. 109The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to " identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." 110 If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment" to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are " acceptable due to overriding concerns.""' The DEIR concludes that both GHG emissions and transportation impacts are significant and unavoidable. 112 The DEIR provides that, even with the implementation of mitigation measures MM GHG- 1, GHG- 2, and MM TRANS- 2a and TRANS- 2b, the Project still results in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. SWAPE confirmed that the DEIR' s conclusion that GHG impacts are unavoidable is not supported by substantial evidence. SWAPE confirmed that there 108City of Pleasanton,News,Pleasanton City Council Approves Two New Water Wells to Meet Long- Term Drinking Water Needs( Oct. 17, 2023), available at:
https:// www citvofpleasantonca gov/news/pleasanton- city- council- approves- two- new- water- wellsto- meet-long- term- drinking- water- needs/.
109 14 C. C. R. § 15002( a)( 2), ( 3); seealso Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal. 3d at 564.
110 14 C. C. R. § 15002( a)( 2).
111 Public Resources Code § 21081( a)( 3), ( b); 14 C. C. R. §§ 15090( a), 15091( a), 15092( b)( 2)( A), ( B); Covington v. GreatBasin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 112DEIR, p. ES- 18- 19; ES- 26.
7357- 013acp
ij printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

are additional feasible mitigation measures which could reduce the Project' s GHG emissions impacts. The DEIR fails to analyze additional measures which could reduce the Project' s GHG emissions impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 113 CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid a project' s potentially significant environmental impacts and describe those mitigation measures in the EIR. 114The lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings regarding a project unless the administrative record demonstrates that it has adopted all feasible mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 115SWAPE provides a list of potential GHG mitigation measures that may apply to the Project. 116The County must consider these and any other available feasible GHG mitigation measures that can further reduce the Project' s significant GHG emissions, and incorporate additional mitigation measures in a revised EIR circulated for public review and comment.

Here, the Project results in significant GHG impacts from construction and operation of the proposed apartments and road improvements. 117 The DEIR provides that "[ p] rior to project operation, the proposed project would construct approximately 1,000 feet of off- site sidewalk improvements and bicycle lane improvements along Busch Road, which would connect to existing facilities on Busch Road and Ironwood Drive." 118 In order to mitigate these GHG impacts, SWAPE recommends BAAQMD recommended measures to reduce Project- related GHG emissions. 119
The DEIR relies on Mitigation Measure MM TRANS- 2b for transportation impacts, but determines the impacts are still significant and unavoidable. MM TRANS- 2b provides that " Prior to project operation, the proposed project would construct approximately 1,000 feet of off- site sidewalk improvements and bicycle lane improvements along Busch Road, which would connect to existing facilities on Busch Road and Ironwood Drive." 120But the DEIR also provides that " as part of the project' s design, the proposed project would construct approximately 1,000 feet of sidewalk and bicycle facilities improvements to fill in the sidewalk gaps on the north side of Busch Road between the project site and the existing sidewalk at 113SWAPE Comments, p. 10.
114 PRC§§§ 21002, 21081( a) 21100( b)( 3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126. 4. 115Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Ca1.App.5th 867, 883. 116SWAPE Comments, pp. 11-12.
117SWAPE Comments, p. 12.
118DEIR, p. ES-26.
119SWAPE Comments, p. 12.
120DEIR, p. 3. 7-27.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Ironwood Drive." 121 The DEIR relies on mitigation that is also a Project design feature to conclude that transportation impacts cannot be mitigated. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. 122 CEQA defines " mitigation" as "[ a]voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; [ m] inimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; r] ectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; [ r] educing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or [c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." 123The project design features are therefore not " mitigation" within the meaning of CEQA, because construction of approximately 1,000 feet of off- site sidewalk improvements and bicycle lane improvements is already a Project component. Moreover, as SWAPE' s comments demonstrate, MM TRANS- 2b itself will result in GHG emissions impacts which must be mitigated in a revised and recirculated EIR.

Further, the Project results in cumulatively significant GHG impacts, particularly when taking into account the proposed Senior East County Lakes Project. The additional 569 units and 10, 000 square feet of support services will result in cumulatively significant GHG and transportation impacts that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze or mitigate. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately quantify the cumulative GHG and transportation impacts of the concurrent proposed Project on the Project site.

D. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Significant Noise and Vibration Impacts
i. The DEIR Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project' s significant operational and construction noise impacts. Furthermore, the DEIR fails to analyze noise impacts to the foreseeable Senior East County Lakes Project.

The DEIR predicts future traffic noise levels, including project traffic increases, of 65 dBA along Busch Road.124These levels exceed normally acceptable community noise exposure threshold of 60 dBA for single family residences, per 121DEIR, p. 3. 16-20.
122Id. at§ 15064( a)( 2).
123 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15370.
124DEIR, p. 3. 12-21, Table 3. 12- 8
7357- 013acp
Oprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

California Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. 125Ms.

Toncheva concludes that operational noise impacts are therefore significant. The DEIR' s conclusion that operational noise impacts are less than significant is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

Ms. Toncheva' s comments also provide substantial evidence that noise from off-site elements of the Project, including the proposed sewer treatment plant located in Parcel B adjacent to the Project Site will result in a significant environmental impact. 126Ms. Toncheva' s comments demonstrate that the pumps on top of separation tanks could allow noise to propagate deep into an adjoining neighborhood, significantly disturbing noise sensitive receptors. 127 Further, Ms.

Toncheva concludes that the nearby lake would further exacerbate operational noise from the sewer treatment plant. 128Ms. Toncheva' s comments provide that the lake' s "smooth water surface reflects sound, and the effect can be amplified by morning and evening air inversions." 129The Project' s sewer treatment plant results in significant, unmitigated operational noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, which must be analyzed and mitigated in a revised and recirculated EIR.

Further, Ms. Toncheva' s comments point to the DEIR' s failure to adequately analyze the cumulative operational noise impacts associated with the Project. The DEIR includes a public comment that: " The Draft EIR should analyze noise impacts associated with proximity to the City of Pleasanton Operations Services Center, Fire Training Facility, and Police Department practice range." 130The DEIR fails to adequately address the potentially significant cumulative operational noise impacts of these projects, even though these facilities are mentioned as dominant noise sources near the Project site. 131The DEIR' s failure to adequately analyze the cumulative operational noise impacts of these Projects is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.

The DEIR fails to analyze noise impacts to the adjacent Senior East County Lakes Project. Ms. Toncheva' s comments demonstrate that the DEIR' s failure to include analysis of the Senior East County Lakes Project in the environmental baseline for the Project results in an underestimation of the Project' s operational noise impacts.
125https:// www. Ici.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix D final. pdf 126Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
127Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
128Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
129Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
130DEIR, pg. 3. 12- 1.
131DEIR, pg. 3. 12- 10.
7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to include analysis of the Project' s and nearby projects' cumulative operational noise impacts before the Project can proceed.
ii. The DEIR Underestimates Construction Noise Impacts
The DEIR concludes that construction noise impacts are less than significant.

This is not correct. Construction noise will exceed the Federal Transit Administration' s 80 dBA threshold at nearby sensitive receptors. 132Ms. Toncheva calculated that construction noise at nearby residences would be over 82 dBA. 133 The DEIR' s construction noise analysis assumes shielding from the existing 6-foot high sound wall located along the project' s western boundary adjoining the residential land uses.134Ms. Toncheva' s comments provide that the DEIR provides no evidence in the form of measurement data, or clarification on the type of wall, to support the determination that the 6- foot wall would shield the Project' s noise impacts. 135 The DEIR provides that "[ w] hile the proposed project would raise the project site by approximately 6 feet adjacent to the western boundary of the project site, the proposed project would include a retaining wall and good neighbor wall to minimize impacts relate to existing visual characteristics of the site." 136 The DEIR does not provide any definition of a " retaining wall" or a " good neighbor wall" or provide the public with any certainty that this would constitute a noise buffer to mitigate the Project' s construction noise impacts. Moreover, if the Project site is raised 6 feet, then a 6-foot sound wall will do nothing to reduce noise impacts. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to accurately characterize, analyze, and mitigate significant noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project.

VI. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

THE PROJECT' S SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The environmental and public health impacts of the Arroyo Lago and Senior East County Lakes projectswill overlap in time and location, and may be significant both individually and cumulatively. The DEIR fails to account for the Senior East County Lakes Project in the cumulative projects analysis. 137The projects also 132Toncheva Comments, p. 5.
133 Id
134DEIR, p. 3. 12- 19.
135Toncheva Comments, p. 4.
136DEIR, p. 3. 1-16.
137DEIR, Table 3- 1: Cumulative Projects.
7357- 013acp
0printed
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

propose concurrent and potentially incompatible long-term uses on parcel APN 946- 4634-2 which may require the County to consider new project alternatives that were not identified in the Arroyo Lago NOP. The impacts of the two projects must be analyzed in the same EIR. At a minimum, the EIR must analyze and mitigate all reasonablyforeseeabledirect, indirect, and cumulative effectsof the two projects the County identified as potentially significant, including:

Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. 138
The County must also analyze and mitigate any additional significant impacts which are identified during preparation of the EIR. Examples of two impact areas identified by responsible agencies during the NOP comment period are discussed below which require specific analysis in the EIR.

1. Water Supply
The Arroyo Lago and Senior East County Lakes projects may have significant impacts on water supply, both individually and cumulatively, which must be analyzed in a water supply assessment (" WSA") that is circulated for public review with the Draft EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines and State Water Coderequire a WSA to be prepared for all " water- demand projects," which includes, inter alia, residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units, a project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project, proposed residential or mixed use projects that would account for an increaseof 10percent or more in the number of a public water system's existing service connections for public water systems with fewer than 5,000 service connections. 139At 569 units, the Senior East County Lakes Project alone exceeds the 500-unit threshold requiring a WSA. Both the Senior East County Lakes and Arroyo Lago projects may individually exceedthe 10percent threshold for increasing water connections, and when considered together ( 763 units), the projects clearly exceed thresholds requiring a WSA. Under CEQA and the Water 138NOP, p. 11.
139 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15155( a); Water Code§ 10910.
7357- 013acp
Oprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Code, the County must request that the water district prepare a WSA for the projects and include it for public comment in the Draft EIR.

There is also evidence in the record that the existing water supply from the local water district may not be adequate to serve the Arroyo Lago Project, let alone the Senior East County Lakes Project. In 2022, the California Water Service Company Livermore District (" Cal Water") provided the County with a will- serve letter for the Arroyo Lago Project based on the Project' s plan to drill wells on site and equip them with necessary water storage and booster pumps. 140However, Cal Water retracted the will- serve letter in October 2023, explaining:

Cal Water has not evaluated the forecasted water system needs of this development, the ability of Zone 7 to serve this new development under the existing Cal Water contract, nor conducted a review of the water system evaluation of this new development. As such, all claims in the documentation regarding the availability of water for the development have not been validated by Cal Water, the future water purveyor for this development. 141 The Cal Water letter stated that, as of October 2023, Cal Water was working with USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P. to develop a Letter of Agreement (" LOA') to provide water service to the Arroyo Lago Project, but that the LOA was still under negotiation. 142The addition of the 569-unit Senior East County Lakes Project will substantially expand the water supply needs at the Project site, and may require significant changes to the LOA Cal Water is considering. The Projects' cumulative water supply needs must be quantified and discussed in the WSA and EIR.

2. Hazardous Materials / Soil Contamination
A portion of the Project site was formerly an aggregate mining facility and is undergoing ongoing regulatory cleanup for hazardous substances under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health ACDEH"). 143 The current site status is listed as " OPEN - LONG TERM MANAGEMENT AS OF 7/ 18/ 2017." 144 In October 2022, ACDEH responded to the Arroyo Lago Project application by explaining that site closure would be dependent 140 Exhibit E— Letter from California Water Serviceto Alameda County re Will Serve Tract or Parcel Map No: PM 11230 Owner: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P. ( 11/11/2022). 141Exhibit F, Letter from California Water Serviceto Alameda County re CaseNo.: PLN2022-00193 10/ 12/ 2023)
142 Id.
143See Exhibit G, Geotracker, USL Pleasonton Lakes, available at https:Hgeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/i)rofile report?global id=T10000009398(visited 9/10/24). 144 Id
7357- 013acp
j printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

upon submittal of soil impact reports to ACDEH documenting" soil being imported to the parcel to restore the former quarry in accordance with the Reclamation Plan being implemented under the oversight of Alameda County Community Development Agency on the Former Aggregates Facility under Surface Mining Permit ( SMP) 31." 145 The DEIR' s air quality modeling relies on CalEEMod inputs that provide that there will be zero cubic yards of material imported and exported from the Project site associated with Site Preparation, Grading, or Paving. 146But, the DEIR provides that import and export of grading material would be limited to an off- site location. 147ACDEH requires that " if additional soil is proposed to be imported to the site during redevelopment activities additional documentation will be required to be submitted to ACDEH for review and approval." 148 The DEIR' s reliance on an artificial zero cubic yards of imported and exported material precludes the necessary oversight by ACDEH.

The County must fully investigate and disclose the status of the mine closure in the EIR, and must require that any and all residual contamination at the Project site be cleaned to residential environmental screening levels (" ESLs") before any Project construction activities are allowed to commence.

VII. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND

MITIGATE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND USE

INCONSISTENCIES
Under CEQA, a significant environmental impact results if there is a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 149Under State Planning and Zoning Law, a project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is " fundamental, mandatory, and clear," regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. 150
145 Id
146DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 117. 147 Id.
148
149Endangered Habitats League, 131 Ca1.App. 4th at 783- 784( Project' s inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA). 150Id. at 782- 783; see also Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors( 1998) 62 Cal.App. 4th 1332, 1341- 1342 (holding that project was clearly inconsistent with fundamental policy within land- use element of Draft General Plan). 7357- 013acp
ep printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

A. The DEIR Fails to Analyze or Rectify The Project' s
Inconsistencies with the East County Area Plan
The Project is not consistent with the East County Area Plan (" ECAP").

Policy 301 of the ECAP provides that the County shall only approve new air pollution point sources such as manufacturing and extracting facilities when they are located away from residential areas and sensitive receptors. 151Sensitive receptors are defined in the East County Area Plan as "facilities which are most likely to be used by the elderly or infirm, children, or persons with particular sensitivity to air pollutants, including hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, and similar uses." 152
The Project's sewertreatment plant constitutes an air pollution point source and would result in potentially significant air, odor, and noiseimpact on nearby sensitive receptors. The DEIR provides that " under both Design Option A and Design Option B ( Exhibit 2- 6a and Exhibit 2- 6b), the sewer treatment plant would be located west of El Charro Road in the northern portion of APN 946-4634-2."153 The proposed Senior East County Lakes Project is also proposed on APN 946-4634-

2. The Montessori School of Pleasonton is located 0. 25 miles from the Project site. 154Sensitive receptors including individuals in the residences on the Project site itself, and seniors living at the Senior East County Lakes Project adjacent to the Project, and students at the Montessori School of Pleasonton will be adversely affectedby the air, odor, and noiseemissionsfrom the sewertreatment plant.

ECAP Policy 302 requires that the " County shall include buffer zones within new residential and sensitive receptor site plans to separate those uses away from freeways, arterials, point sources, and hazardous material locations." 155 Program 104 states that the County shall require the use of noise reduction techniques ( such as buffers, building design modifications, lot orientation, soundwalls, earth berms, landscaping, building setbacks, and real estate disclosure notices) to mitigate noise impacts generated by transportation- related and stationary sources as specified in the California Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. 156 The DEIR provides that the DEIR' s noise analysis was conducted " assuming minimal shielding from the existing 6-foot high sound wall 151 Alameda County, East County Area Plan( 1994) ( Revised by Initiative Nov. 2000), ( hereinafter ECAP").
152Id. at p. T- 4
153DEIR, p. 2- 29.
154DEIR, p. 3. 8-20.
155ECAP, p. 71.
156ECAP, p. 70.
7357- 013acp
L printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

located along the project' s western boundary adjoining the residential land uses." 157 But, the DEIR does not include any binding requirement that the Project include a 6- foot tall noise barrier. Therefore, the DEIR' s assumption that a 6- foot high sound wall will be erected is not supported. The Project' s failure to include a binding measure requiring a noise barrier results in a violation of the ECAP, and results in the Project' s nonconformance with CEQA.

Pursuant to the map in the DEIR, Exhibit 2- 6a below, detailing the Project' s off- site improvements, the Project fails to include a buffer to separate the sewer treatment plant or bioretention area from the residential units at the Project site.

Sensitive receptors at the Project itself and those at the Senior East County Lakes Project will be subject to air pollution and noise pollution emission from the sewer treatment plant and related infrastructure. The DEIR' s failure to provide a buffer to protect these sensitive receptors violates the ECAP and results in the Project' s nonconformance with CEQA. The DEIR must be recirculated because new information of substantial importance must be added, that sensitive receptors at the Senior East County Lakes Project will be adversely affected by development of the sewer treatment plant.
157DEIR, p. 3.12-19.
7357- 013acp
Oprinted
on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

Legend
IProteclSR.

Approsmare Gradng Umgs IDesign Option A)
f
I
r
V
ag
Soorce.$ rg Aerial Imagery CBG C., l Engi- ez s 12i2C23

FIRSTCARBON
e
Exhibit 2- 6a
per
Proposed Off- Site Improvements- Design Option A
VIII. THE COUNTY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO

APPROVE THE PROJECT' S ENTITLEMENTS
Project approval requires approval of a site developmentpermit and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

The Project requires a Site Developmentpermit. The planning director or his or her designated representative shall receive and decide applications for site developmentreview. No public hearing is required, but the planning director may give suchnotice as he deemsappropriate. Should the planning director or other public bodyhold a public hearing on a site developmentreview the planning department shall give notice of the hearing pursuant to Section 17.54.830. Alameda County Municipal Code Section 17. 54. 240 provides that "[ t] he planning director, upon receipt of an application for site development review, shall make such investigations as are necessaryto determine whether or not the proposeduseor structure conformsor may be conditionedto conform fully to the regulations for the district as herein set forth. The planning director may request reports and recommendationsfrom the county surveyor, building official and health officer, 7357- 013acp
printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

public works department, other offices of the county, or any other interested public agencies regarding matters within their jurisdiction which may be affected by the proposed use or structure." 158 The Project as proposed, does not conform with the regulations of the County, the ECAP, or CEQA.

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.54. 250, the Planning Director has the authority to require additional study if the Project may cause emission of dangerous or objection noise, odors, lights, dust, smoke or vibrations. " If, in the opinion of the planning director, the proposed use may cause the emission of dangerous or objectionable noise, odors, lights, dust, smoke or vibrations, the planning director with the consent of the applicant, may refer the application for investigation and report to one or more expert consultants qualified to advise as to whether a proposed use will conform to the applicable performance standards. Such consultant or consultants shall report in writing to the planning director and a copy of such report shall be furnished to the applicant. The applicant shall be required to pay the fee for service of said consultant( s)." 159 Here, additional information is required to analyze the cumulatively and individually significant impacts of the Project combined with the concurrent Senior East County Lakes Project. This additional review should be included in a revised and recirculated EIR.

The Municipal Code requires that the advisory agency shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove tentative maps of subdivisions normally within fifty ( 50) days after filing of a complete application, including completion of environmental review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. 160 Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to dedication and improvement of streets; alleys, including access rights and abutters' rights; and drainage, public utility, and other public easements. 161The advisory agency may require establishment of a maintenance agreement or homeowners' or property owners' association( s) to maintain private streets and other common areas, and may require a minimum deposit to establish an initial or long term reserve fund or both for use by the future property owners. 162 The Municipal Code provides that no tentative map shall be approved which is not in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, the county zoning ordinance and any other ordinance of this county. 163The DEIR' s inadequacies and 158 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 17. 54. 240.
159 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 17. 54. 250.
160 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 16. 08. 080.
161 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 16. 08. 080.
162 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 16. 08. 080.
163 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 16. 08. 090.
7357- 013acp
ry printed on recycled paper
November 8, 2024

the Project's nonconformancewith the ECAP precludesthe County from making the necessaryfindings that the Project conformswith local law and precludesthe County from making the necessaryfindings to approvethe tentative map. 164 i
IX. CONCLUSION
For the reasonsdiscussedabove, the DEIR for the Project remains wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be thoroughly revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project' s potentially significant impacts.

Theserevisions will necessarilyrequire that the DEIR be recirculated for public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the County may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman
Attachments
KDF: acp
164 Alameda County Municipal Code§ 16. 08. 080; 16. 08. 090. 7357- 013acp
0printed
on recycled paper

EXHIBIT A
hnical Consultation, Data Analysis and
1SWAPETL'ificgationSupport for the Environment
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
949) 887- 9013
mhagemann@swape. com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
310) 795- 2335
prosenfeld@swape. com
November 7, 2024
Kelilah Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd# 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Arroyo Lago Residential Project( SCH No. 2023050339) Dear Ms. Federman,
We have reviewed the September 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report(" DEIR") for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project(" Project") located in the City of Alameda (" City"). The Project proposes constructing 194 dwelling units with associated parking areas and a 0.7-acre park on the 26.6-acre site, as well as 1, 000 feet of off- site road improvements to Busch Road.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project' s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report(" EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (" CaIEEMod") Version 2022. 1 (p. 3.2-1). 1CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site- specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental 1" CaIEEMod User' s Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, May 2021, available at:
https:// www. aqmd. gov/ caIeemod/ user' s- guide.

Quality Act(" CECIA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.' After entering all relevant data into the model, CalEEMod calculates the emissions from both construction and operational phases, producing"output files." Thesefiles outline the parametersusedin the emissions calculationsand highlight any modifications madeto the default values,alongwith justifications for each change.

Upon review of the Project' s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information (" AQ& GHG Analysis") as Appendix B to the DEIR, we identified several model inputs that are inconsistent with the information presented in the DEIR.These discrepancies, outlined below, suggest the Project' s construction emissions may be underestimated. A revised EIR should be preparedto includean updated air quality analysisthat adequatelyevaluatesthe impactsthat constructionof the Projectwill haveon localand regionalair quality.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the" Alameda County Arroyo Lago Residential Main Site" model includes changes to the default construction schedule( see excerpt below) ( Appendix B, pp. 95, 96).

Land the The land use summaryis based on site plan andapplcant-providedinformation.The squarefootage of the 49 ADUsare includedin the' Single FamilyFbusing" lard use.

Construction: Castruction Phases The scheduleis basedan applicant-provided information.The const— bonwould occur 7 daysa Wask for canserYat- 71
Construction: Trips and VMT
27 one-ways trips are added for pwN phase. On-site truth tripsare addedto gradingphase to accountfor truck trips near the projectsite based on applicant-providedinfomnbon.

Constructor ArctMectural Coatings Basedanapplicant-providedinfarm3tion.nointeriorpaintingisneeded.

Construction- Paving The pavedarea is basedon land use surnrnary Operations- ArE4Yeditdl Coatings Basedon applicant-provided information,the interior painting is not needed. Page92 Construction Off- Road EWpirrient Severalequipmentare adjustedto beelectric as a corr»an constructrm practice.Numberof fo M, generatorsets. tractors,and makdersare increasedto 5 each dayto account foroverlapped constructionduring buildingconstructionphase
Operations= Vehicle Data
Batedontrafficstudy,total2.159tripsaaddbegenerateddakyThetripratesareacliustedtoinclude trips generated by 49 AM
Asa result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule ( see excerpt below) Appendix B, pp. 77):
1 Mass Grading Grading 3/ 12025 628/ 2025 7. 00 120 Mass grading and surcharge
4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/ fa025 8212027 7. 00 751 Vertical construction 3 Man Site and Frontage Paving 10/ 272025 7/ 232026 7A0 270 Including top site Improvement
anpro — nt and frontage
construction on Busch
Road. east boundary
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2182027 8/ 21/ 2027 7. 00 195 Interior and exterior orating 2 Ublhy Trending Trenching 629/ 2025 10262025 7. 00 120 For underground utilities 2"
CalEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www.aamd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide p. 13, 14.
2 The CaIEEMod User' s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 3 As shown above in the User Changes to Default Data" table above, the justification provided for these changes is:

The schedule is based on applicant- provided information. The construction would occur 7 days a week for conservative estimates" ( Appendix B, pp. 95).

Regarding the Project' s anticipated construction duration, the DEIRstates:

At the time of this analysis, the construction of the proposed project was anticipated to begin in March 2025 and end in August 2027" ( p. 3.7- 22).

The DEIRalso provides the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) ( p. 3. 2-24, Table 3.2-4).

Table 3. 2- 4: Construction Schedule
L ConceptualConstructionScheduleWorking Days per;
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Week Working Days Main Project Site Construction
Mass Grading 7 3/ 1/ 2025 6/ 28/ 2025 7 120
Utility Trenching 6/ 29/ 2025 10/ 26/ 2025 7 120
Main Site and Frontage
10/ 27/ 2025 7/ 23/ 2026 7 270
Improvement
Building Construction 8/ 1/ 2025 8/ 21/ 2027 7 751
Architectural Coating 2/ 8/ 2027 8/ 21/ 2027 7 195
Off- site improvements
j Site Preparation 6/ 1/ 2025
L
6/ 30/ 2025 7 30
Grading 7/ 1/ 2025 I 7/ 28/ 2025 7 28
Building Construction 7/ 29/ 2025
1 2/ 13/ 2026 7 200
Paving 2/ 14/ 2026 5/ 27/ 2026 7 103
Architectural Coating 5/ 5/ 2026 5/ 27/ 2026 7 23
Agriculture Field Trenching 7/ 29/ 2025 ( 8/ 17/ 2025 7 20 Source: CaIEEMod Output( Appendix Bj.

The changes to the individual construction phase lengths, however, remain unsubstantiated. While the DEIR substantiates a total length of Project construction of 30 months, the DEIR fails to provide a sufficient source for the individual construction phase lengths, as demonstrated above by Table 3.2-4.

The DEIR cites its own CaIEEMod outputs as the source of these changes, which does not qualify as substantial evidence" required under CEQA.4Until a proper source is provided, such as information 3"
CaIEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www. agmd. gov/ caleemod/ user's-guide, p. 13, 14.
4"
CaIEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www. agmd. gov/ caleemod/ user' s-guide, p.

14. 3
from the Project Applicant, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 30 months.' The construction emissions are inexplicably spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User' s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities ( see excerpt below).'
Demolition involves removing buildings or structures.

Site Preparation involves clearing vegetation( grubbing and tree/ stump removal) and removing stones and other unwanted material or debris prior to grading.

Gradina nvolves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.

Building Construction involves the construction of the foundation, structures and buildings.

Architectural Coatina involves the application of coatings to both the interior and exterior of buildings or structures, the painting of parking lot or parking garage striping, associated signage and curbs, and the painting of the walls or other components such as stair railings inside parking structures.

Paying involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots, roads, driveways, or sidewalks.

By altering and extending the construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and fewer pollutants emitted per day. The model may therefore underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with construction and should not be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project' s construction emissions.

Failure to Include Required Material Export and Import
The DEIR reveals that Project construction could include soil import and export, stating:

Based on applicant provided information, any import and export of soil would be accomplished by using soil from a soil harvest site east of the residential project site. As such, import and export of material would not generate long haul trips but would expand the area to be disturbed to include the vacant lot located directly east of the residential project site. Potential impacts from this additional area to be disturbed was accounted for in the localized air quality impact analysis completed for the project by including the adjacent site as part of the AERMOD modeling conducted for the construction HRA" ( p. 3. 2- 26).

Review of the CalEEMod output files, however, demonstrates that the " Alameda County Arroyo Lago Residential Main Site" model does not include any amount of material import or export ( see excerpt below) ( Appendix B, pp. 81, 82):
5SeeAttachment A for proportionately altered construction schedule. 6"
CalEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www. agmd. gov/ caleemod/ user' s-guide, p.

32. 4
I Mass Grading 720 0. 00
3 Main Site and Frontage 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 000 166
Improvement
The model does not account for the possibility of Project- related earthwork, and therefore fails to conduct a "' conservative analysis' to afford the ' fullest possible protection of the environment"' as is required under CEQA.' As the DEIR leaves doubt as to whether there would be material import or export, the model should include a conservative estimate.

Additionally, the DEIR' s inclusion of the adjacent site into the AQ& GHG Analysis' s AERMOD modeling fails to substantiatethe model'somissionof material import andexport. Asdiscussedbythe BayArea Air Quality Management District(" BAAQMD"), Project Applicants are required to model construction- related emissions using CalEEMod which can include " soil disturbance, grading, and material hauling."' As such, the above- mentioned soil import and export should have been included in the CalEEMod as well.

The inclusion of material import and export within the model is essential for accurately calculating emissions generated from material movement, which encompasses truck loading and unloading, as well as additional hauling truck trips.
9 By failing to include the amount of material import required for Project construction, the model has underestimated the Project' s construction- related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project' s construction emissions. A revised EIR should be prepared to include required amounts of material import and export, and include revised models, as required by CEQA and the BAAQMD.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Values Review of the CaIEEModoutput files demonstrates that the" Alameda County Arroyo Lago Residential Main Site" model includes changes to the off- road construction equipment input parameters( see excerpt below)( Appendix B, pp. 95, 96).

Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http:// www. agmd. gov/ docs/ default- source/ cega/ handbook/ high- cube- warehouse- trip- rate- study- for- air- quality- analysis/ final- ielc 6- 19- 2014. pdf? sfvrsn= 2 8" BAAQMDCEQAAir Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD,2022, availableat:
https:// www. baagmd. gov/—/ media/ files/ planning- and- research/ cega/ cega-guidelines- 2022/ cega-guidelines- chapter- 5-project- air- quality- impacts final- pdf. pdf? la=en p. 5- 4. 9"
CaIEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www. agmd. gov/ caleemod/ user's-guide p.

34. 5
Land 11se
The landuse summary is basedon site plan and applicantprovided information The square footage of the 49 AOUs are includedin the" Single FamilyHousing' land use.

Construction-. Construction Phases The scheduleis basedon applicant-provided informaticn.The constructionwuild occur 7 days a week for conservative estimates.

Construction: Tnps and,% T
27 ore- waystrips are added forpaving phase. On-saelmdn trips are addedto grading phase to account for truck taps near the project site based on applicant- provided information.

Construction. Architectural Coatings Based on applicant-providedinformation,no interior,pamtrg is needed_ Construction. Paving The pavedarea m basedon land use sure ry O ations: ArORSO& A Coatinas Based on nt rovided information the interior oantina is not needed. Page 92 Construction: OS- Road Erpipnwrht Severalequipmentareadjustedtobeelectricasacartoonconstructionpractice.NuninerofforkkR, generator sets, tractors,and welders are increasedto 5 each dayro account foroverlapped constructionduring buildingconstructionphase.

Ope, A- s: Vehicle Data Basedontrafficstudy,told 2.159trips+mouldbegenerateddaffy.Thetripr,Aesareadjustedtomclude trips generatedby 49 ADU.

As a result, the model includes the following off- road equipment table ( Appendix B, pp. 78, 79):
1 Mass Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3. 00 8. 00 367 040 1 Mass Grading Tracta, 54- oaders/ Back h Diesel Tier4 Final 3. 00 8. 00 840 0. 37 o¢ s
1 Mass Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 3. 00 8. 00 146 OA1 1 Mass Grading Ficarators Diesel Tier4 Final 3. 00 8. 00 360 0. 38 1 Mass Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3, 00 8, 00 423 0. 48 4 Building Construction Cranes Desel Tier 4 Final 1. 00 7, 00 367 029 4 Balding Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 5. 00 8. 00 82- 0 020 4 Balding Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 5 00 8. 00 14. 0 0. 74 d Balding Construction Tractorsi- oaders/ Backh Diesel Tier 4 Final 5. 00 7, 00 84. 0 037 Oes
4 Balding Construction Welders Electric Average 4. DO 800 46. 0 0. 45 4 Building Construction Welders Electric Tier Final 1. 00 8. 00 46- 0 0. 45 Y
3 Main Site and Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2. 00 8. 00 81. 0 0. 42 Frontage Improvernem
3 Main Site and Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2. 00 8. 00 89. 0 036 Frontage Improvement
3 Main Site and Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2. 00 8. 00 36- 0 038 Frontage lrrhprovel* M
The justification provided for these changes, found in the " User Changes to Default Data" table, states:

Severalequipmentare adjustedto beelectric asa commonconstruction practice. Numberof forklift, generatorsets,tractors, andweldersare increasedto 5 eachdayto accountfor overlapped construction during building construction phase" ( Appendix B, pp. 96).

The DEIRprovides a summary of the assumptions regarding the use of on-site, off- road construction equipment, relied on to evaluate emissions (see excerpt below) ( p. 3.2-25, Table 3. 2- 5):
6 Table 3. 2- 5: Project Construction Equipment Assumptions Number Hours Per Load
Phase Name Equipment Type per Day Day Horsepower Factor Fuel Type Main Project Site Construction
Mass Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 3 I 8 367 0. 40 Diesel Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 3 8 84 0. 37 Diesel
Graders 3 8 1480. 41 Diesel
Excavators 3 ( 8 36 0. 38 Diesel
Scrapers 3 8 423 0. 48 Diesel
Utility Trenching Trenchers 1 8 40 0. 50 Diesel
Excavators 1 1 8 36 0. 38 Diesel
Main Site and Frontage Pavers 2 8 81 0. 42 Diesel
Improvement
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0. 36 Diesel
Rollers 2 8 36 0. 38 Diesel
Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0. 29 Diesel
Forklifts 5 8 82 0. 20 Diesel
Generator Sets 5 8 14 0. 74 Diesel
Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 5 7 84 0. 37 Diesel
Welders 5 8 46 0. 45 Electric
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0. 48 Electric Source: CalEEMod Output A endix B .

Note: The above screenshot only includes Main Project Site construction equipment assumptions.

As the DEIR states that the source for the construction equipment assumptions are the CalEEMod output files themselves, the changes to the off- road equipment values are unsubstantiated. While the model shows the inclusion of electric construction equipment, the DEIR fails to mention this or provide an adequate source for the assumptions in the above table. The DEIR again cites its own CalEEMod output files as the source of these changes and fails to meet CEQArequirements. 10We are consequently unable to verify these changes until the DEIRprovides specific, substantiated information regarding construction equipment values and fuel types. While these changes remain unsubstantiated, we recommend that the values are left as default.

CaIEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https:// www. agmd. gov/ caIeemod/ user' s-guide, p.

14. 7
CalEEModusesthe off-roadequipment unit amounts, horsepower,and hoursof useper dayvaluesto calculate the emissions associated with off- road construction equipment. 11The model may therefore underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Engine Emissions Standards Review of the DEIRdemonstrates that the " Alameda County Arroyo Lago Residential Main Site" model assumes that the Project' s off- road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Final emissions standards ( see excerpt below) ( Appendix B, pp. 78, 79). 1 Mass Gradng Rubber Toed Dozers Diesel Twr 4 Rol 3. 00 8. 00 367 0. 40 1 Mass Gradng T' adarsUaderslBackh Diesel Twr 4 Fnal 3.00 00 84. 0 0. 37 oes
1 Mass Gradng Graders Diesel Twr4 Final 3.00 800 148 0. 41 1 Mass Gradng Excavators Diesel Twr 4 Fnal 3. 00 800 36. 0 0. 38 1 Mass Gmdng Saa{ wrs Diesel Tier 4 RW 3. 00 8.00 423 0. 48 4 BL" V Ca tructian Ganes piesel Twr 4 Find 1. 00 7. 00 367 0. 29 4 Butldirg Gxrshictm F. Mft Diesel Twr 4 Fnal 5. 00 8-00 820 0. 20 4 Buddng Corrstrudan Gawaw Salt Diesel Meraw 5. 00 8.00 140 0. 74 4& W& V Castrucbm Trada& LoaderslBackh Diesel Tier4 Fnal 5. 00 7. 00 84. 0 0. 37 oes
4 BuddingCorshumon VvW& m Electric Average 400 8. 00 46. 0 0. 45 4 Buk" GxsGucWn Welders Ekceic Tier 4 Fnal 1. 00 6.00 46. 0 0. 45 3 Main Site and Pavers Diesel Tier 4 FwW 2.00 800 81. 0 0.42 Frontage kr9-- anent
3 Mdr Sae and PavingEquipmera Diesel Twr 4 Fid 2. 00 8 00 89. 0 0. 36 FrontageWprrovenena
3 Main Site and R. L- Diesel Twr 4 Fnal 2.00 800 36. 0 0.38 Frontagehp-
5 Ardrileckral C> WV Aa Cwprewm EWcbx Average 5. 00 6. 00 37. 0 0.48 2 L% W Trendrarg Trerrdrers Diesel Average 1.00 800 40. 0 0. 50 2 L WtyT-. h. rg Excavators Diesel Average 1. 00 8 00 36. 0 0. 38 Furthermore, the DEIR includes mitigation measure(" MM") AIR- 3 that states:

Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits ( whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant and/ or construction contractor shall prepare a construction operations plan that, during construction activities, requires all off- road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower to meet particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 interim engines" p. 3. 2-55).

The inclusion of Tier 4 Final emissions standards remains unsupported, as the DEIR fails to discuss or required the use of Tier 4 Final emission standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency U. S. EPA") has slowly adopted more stringent standards to lower the emissions from off- road construction equipment. Since 1994, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment havebeenphasedin overtime. Tier 4 Finalrepresentsthe cleanestburning equipment and 11"
CalEEMod User' s Guide." CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https:// www. caleemod. com/ documents/ user- Ruide/ 01 User%20Guide. pdf, p. 36.
8 therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment( see excerpt below):"
r Isas IaaB ta9T 1Baa lass moo mol 3WI zom zxd zoos zooa zooT lace loos Icon mu mu love m: a ions• 2 9 50 T. a. a. i. p. en 5. 6 a._.. i. 5..: al; p32 13143f( 1A2 sosnpr Ts ss;>_ T, o z' 15. 1.-, osrz'
se - rn
Tssr ico r;. e. ss. sT. nzo
o. la
IOnsrps iT. 9. 3'. r._ iD STInZl
J1 MO I,.
cross
ir. sro aoo ay I_...._
n. aslq eno 1. 0, Ea ..
a-, 15. C+. J3p;
asovwsT. o
ow,
raobe
ze.+
Tspq
r
s.... esc
sorotco. aut
slzcaw o. sot
cE.> saooro
o3o: as: z. tonz O.az
urea. nretl rom arrva 4a em.. es Bax.^ no.;: w., w. an.: a. gn.:' msprrg.' c. oesel/ mcumenq, - Road_ Ore, cel_B s4z al when aRB an0l6Epw steMartls Etter. tt. stanch Ws mown Mre represM, t! rt more strstLerK d the two_ bl SlaMaltls gnen( was f+lla d 7W l engines are lytlmca: tanvnges d ntraen lNOa}ttvroon mmouae Idlvparaculme ma. er; pMi In gams per twhefaspbwer per noun rybfluMl-
cl$ G( bartle greenfor all sires d ller Z cram7ler 3 erlglrces.aM Ter d ergmes bNow 75 tnrsemwer are: nmmemane hrMorartvn IM1MNCIsN04W/ pM myWlp- nr. tll5larltlartls Lren for Tlerd engixs abbre l5 tgrsepower are 4MHf, a0afC0: Vol m$' Mpnr. eYEns.ne famlaes mttns power rategory mar artematey meet T.tt 3 PMstantlarGs1030 L' Mtp-nrl( rom IOOB2021 m earnange fw mtrc. unng final pM stargalCs m 2012 f71he nyNemeManon sNetlub sfow. 5 the tmenraar aflerwte NOa approach. other sdre. uke are armlebte. d CerMln manufuwreaa nne egreetl to aompy wlm mrne nantla. m br 2005. ina fe- l- rxrS t. rl a.- a. e, fear
Tier 4 Interim equipment has higher emission levels than Tier 4 Final equipment. Therefore, by modeling construction emissions assuming a full Tier 4 Final equipment fleet, the AQ& GHG Analysis fails to account for higher emissions that may occur because of the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment.

Additionally, while MM AIR-3 specifies that it applies to " off- road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower," a review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that Tier 4 Final emissions standards are applied to equipment with lower horsepower. Specifically, as shown in the excerpt above, the AQ& GHG Analysis applies these standards to excavators, welders, and rollers, all of which all have horsepower ratings below 50. Until a revised EIRis prepared that substantiates the use of Tier 4 Final emissions standards, including for equipment with less than 50 horsepower, the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The DEIR estimates that the Project would result in net annual greenhouse gas (" GHG') emissions of 2, 872- metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year(" MT COze/ year") ( see excerpt below) ( p. 4. 6- 27— 4. 6- 28, Table 4. 6- 4).
12"San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects." August 2015, available at: https:// www. sf. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ 2024- 03/ San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance 2015. pdf, p. 6. 9 Table 3. 7- 3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source GHG En* slorw{ MT COz* per gear}
Mobile 2, 053
Area 6
Energy— Electricity 162
Energy— Natural Gas 478
Water 14
Waste 51
Amortized Construction Emissions 108
Total Annual Project Emissions 2, 872
I-
Notes:

MT COze= metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
Totalsweresummedusingunroundednumbersandmaynot appearto sumexactlydueto rounding.

Source: Appendix B.

TheDEIRconcludesthatthe Projectwouldresultinasignificant-and-unavoidableGHGimpact,stating:

The analysis showed that the proposed project would have a significant GHG impact and as such would be considered to have cumulatively significant impact as well. Feasible and enforceable mitigation with a nexus to the project' s impact have been identified under Impacts GHG-1andGHG-2; however, evenwith implementationof allfeasiblemitigation, project impacts would be significant" ( p. 3.7- 28).

TheDEIRclaimsthatthe Projectalignswith BAAQMDrequirementsanddesignelements.Accordingto CEQA Guidelines§ 15096( g)( 2):

WhenanupdatedEIRhasbeenpreparedfor a project,theResponsibleAgencyshallnot approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measureswithin its powersthat would substantiallylessenor avoidanysignificant effect the project would have on the environment."
An impact cantherefore only be labeledassignificant-and-unavoidableafter all available,feasible mitigation measures are evaluated. While the DEIRincorporates MM GHG-1, GHG-2, and MM TRANS-2a andTRANS-2b,thereareadditionalmeasuresthatthe DEIRfailsto consider(p.3.7-26,3.7-27).To reduce the Project' s GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measuresshouldbe incorporated,suchasthose suggestedin the sectionof this letter titled " Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions."
10 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CECIA Guidelines§ 15096( g)( 2), the DEIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project' s potential impacts. As noted above, the Project may result in potentially significant GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. To reduce the GHG emissions associated with the Project, we recommend several mitigation measures( see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments(" SCAG")' s 2020 RTP/ SCS Program Environmental Impact Report(" PEIR") Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures(" PMM- GHG- 1") recommends:

Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
o Promote transit- active transportation coordinated strategies, o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles, o Improve or increase access to transit,
o Increase accessto common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care, o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network, o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service, o Provide traffic calming measures,
o Limit or eliminate park supply,
o Provide parking cash- out programs, and
o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program.

Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/ or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations.

Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles.

Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug- in.

Implement preferential parking permit program.

Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
o Staggered starting times,
o Flexible schedules, and
o Compressed work weeks.

Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
o New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, o Event promotions, and
o Publications.

Price workplace parking, such as:
o Explicitly charging for parking for its employees,
11 o Implementing above market rate pricing,
o Validating parking only for invited guests,
o Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and o Educating employees about available alternatives.

Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of- trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
o Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride- sharing programs, o Provide transit passes,
o Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services,
o Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single- occupancy vehicle, and
o Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms.

Furthermore, to mitigate the GHG impacts from construction and operation of the proposed apartments and road improvements, BAAQMD recommends the following applicable measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association:"
Provide transit- oriented development,
Implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program,
Use electric or hybrid powered equipment during Project construction, Limit heavy- duty diesel vehicle idling during Project construction, Create a construction plan with community input,
Institute an air quality monitoring and response plan,
Establish vegetative barriers, and
Increase urban tree canopy and green spaces.

Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (" CARB") 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that new residential projects"[ use] all- electric appliances without any natural gas connections and [ do] not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking" to reduce Project- related GHG emissions. 14
Several mitigation measures gathered from SCAG, BAAQMD, and CARB would reduce Project- related GHG emissions. These measures offer a cost- effective, feasible way to incorporate lower- emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project 13"Mitigating Air Quality And ClimateImpacts" BAAQMD,April 2023,availableat:
https:// www. baagmd. gov/-/ media/ files/ planning- and- research/ cega/ cega- guidelines- 2022/ cega- guidelines- chapter-8-mitigation final-pdf.pdf?rev=5a4aa8d31c394498b8b4de4e9eb46edc&sc lane=en p. 8-5- 7. 14"2022ScopingPlanForAchievingCarbonNeutrality" CARB, November2022,availableat:
https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf AppendixD,p. 23, Table

3. 12
construction and operation. A revised EIR should be prepared that incorporates all feasible mitigation measures and includes an updated GHG analysis to ensure the implementation of these measures and maximize emissions reductions.

Disclaimer
SWAPEhas 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,
n
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D.
13 Attachment B
SW APE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE M G Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405
Atim Paul Rosenfeld, Ph. D.

Mobil:( 310) 795- 2335
Office:( 310) 452- 5555
Fax:( 310) 452- 5550
Email: urosenfeldli swaoexom
Pahl 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.Dissertationon volatile organiccompoundfiltration.

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, storagetanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventionaloil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experiencerangesfrom monitoring and modeling of pollution sourcesto evaluating impactsof pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residentsin surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigatedand designedremediation programs and risk assessmentsfor contaminatedsites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and f Trans, 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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 1 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 HZO 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 treatmentfacilities in the United States. WIT Transactionson Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123( 17), 319- 327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
TamL.K..,WuC.D.,ClarkJ.J.andRosenfeld,P.E.(2008).A StatisticalAnalysisOfAtticDustAndBloodLipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro- p- Dibenzodioxin ( TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients ( TEQ) In Two PopulationsNearWoodTreatmentFacilities. OrganohalogenCompounds,70,002252-002255.

TamL. K.., WuC.D.,ClarkJ.J. andRosenfeld,P.E.( 2008).MethodsForCollectSamplesForAssessingDioxins 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).AtticDustandHumanBloodSamplesCollectednear aFormerWoodTreatmentFacility. EnvironmentalResearch. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). TheUseof anOdorWheelClassificationfor Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science& Technology55(5), 345-357, Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet.(2007).TheAnatomyOf OdourWheelsForOdoursOf DrinkingWater, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science& Technology55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J. J. J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 2007). ToxicLegacy, SyntheticToxinsin theFood, Water, andAir in American Cities. BostonMassachusetts:ElsevierPublishing Rosenfeld, P.E., andSuffetI.H. (2004). Controlof CompostOdorUsingHighCarbonWoodAsh. WaterScience and Technology.49(9),171-178.

RosenfeldP. E.,J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel)Suffet(2004). TheValueofAnOdor-Quality-WheelClassificationScheme ForTheUrbanEnvironment. WaterEnvironmentFederation's TechnicalExhibitionandConference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2- 6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., andSuffet, I.H. (2004). UnderstandingOdorantsAssociatedWithCompost, BiomassFacilities, andtheLandApplicationof Biosolids. WaterScienceandTechnology.49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., andSuffetI.H. (2004). Controlof CompostOdorUsingHighCarbonWoodAsh, WaterScience and Technology,49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). MeasurementofBiosolidsOdorandOdorantEmissionsfrom Windrows,StaticPileandBiofilter. WaterEnvironmentResearch.76(4),310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M andSuffet, M. (2002). CompostDemonstrationProject, SacramentoCaliforniaUsing High-CarbonWoodAshtoControlOdorataGreenMaterialsCompostingFacility.IntegratedWasteManagement BoardPublicAffairsOffice,PublicationsClearinghouse(MS-6),Sacramento,CA Publication#442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P. E., and C. L. Henry. ( 2001). Characterizationof odor emissionsfrom threedifferent biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173- 191.

Rosenfeld, P. E., and Henry C. L.,( 2000). Wood ashcontrol of odor emissionsfrom biosolidsapplication.Journal ofEnvironmentalQuality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P. E., C. L. Henry and D. Bennett. ( 2001). Wastewaterdewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissionsandmicrobialactivity. WaterEnvironmentResearch.73(4),363-367.

Rosenfeld,P.E., andC.L. Henry. (2001).ActivatedCarbonandWoodAshSorptionof 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 3 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 WesternRegional Meeting, American ChemicalSociety. Lectureconductedfrom SantaClara,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) Contaminationin Drinking WaterFrom the Useof AqueousFilm 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"Contaminationin Drinking WaterFrom the Useof AqueousFilm 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 populationsliving nearfourwoodtreatmentfacilitiesin theUnitedStates. Brebbia, C.A. andPopov, V., eds.,Air Pollution XVII: Proceedingsof the SeventeenthInternational Conferenceon Modeling, Monitoring and Management ofAir Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community ExposureTo ContaminantsFrom A Releasing Facility. The23' AnnualInternationalConferencesonSoilsSedimentandWater. Platformlectureconductedfrom University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( October 15- 18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium- Contaminated Water Into A SurroundingCommunityFormRepeatedWasteSpillsFromA NuclearPowerPlant. The23"AnnualInternational Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 4 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 FacilityEmissions. The 23"dAnnualInternationalConferenceson SoilsSedimentand Water. Lectureconducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. ( March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1, 2, 3- Trichloropropane( TCP). TheAssociation 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, Toxicologyand RemediationPEMA Emerging ContaminantConference. Lectureconductedfrom Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph. D. ( September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA EmergingContaminantConference. Lectureconductedfrom 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. andJamesClark Ph.D. and Rob HesseR.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability andToxicology,A NationalProblemandUnquantifiedLiability.NationalGroundwaterAssociation. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

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

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M. F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph. D. and Rob Hesse( 2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

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

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph. D. ( April 7, 2004). A NationalDamageAssessmentModel For PCEand Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground WaterAssociation. Lectureconductedfrom RadisonHotel, 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. andJamesClarkPh.D. (February20-21, 2003) UnderstandingHistoricalUse, Chemical Properties,Toxicity andRegulatoryGuidanceof 1,4 Dioxane.National GroundwaterAssociation.SouthwestFocus Conference. WaterSupplyandEmergingContaminants..LectureconductedfromHyattRegencyPhoenixArizona.

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 SymposiumOn 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 CompostOdor.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. ( September22-24, 2002). Biocycle CompostingFor Coastal SageRestoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld,P.E. andGrey, M. A.( November 11-14,2002).Using High-CarbonWood Ash to Control Odor at a GreenMaterialsCompostingFacility. Soil ScienceSocietyAnnual Conference. Lectureconductedfrom 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). BioremediationUsing Organic Soil Amendments. California ResourceRecovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., C. L. Henry, R. Harrison. ( 1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur EmissionsFollowing Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. WaterEnvironmentFederation 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 ScienceSocietyofAmerica.LectureconductedfromSaltLakeCity Utah.

Rosenfeld, P. E., C. L. Henry, R. Harrison. ( 1998). Comparisonof Microbial Activity and Odor Emissionsfrom ThreeDifferent Biosolids Applied to ForestSoil. Brown and Caldwell. Lectureconductedfrom SeattleWashington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 6 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 EmissionsFollowing 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. Focusedon fate and transport of fuel contaminantsassociatedwith undergroundstorage 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 ScienceProgram,TeachingAssistantfor severalcoursesincluding: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, EnvironmentalScienceProgramTeachingAssistantfor EnvironmentalScience10.

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 awardedto 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 polymersandashon VOC emissionsfrom biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $ 10,000 grant was awardedto investigatethe successof genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round- up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $ 15,000 grant was awardedto investigatingfire 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, StClair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. Oi9- L- 2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5- 14- 2021
Trial, October 8- 4- 2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook CountyIllinois
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 SuperiorCourt of the Stateof Arizona In andFor theCunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonixv. Cox CactusFarm,L.L.C., Utah ShelterSystems,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,Jeremyet al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA InsuranceCompanyetal.

Case Number 1: 17- cv- 000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3- 25- 2021
In the SuperiorCourt of the Stateof California, County of SanBernardino GaryGarner,PersonalRepresentativefor theEstateof MelvinGarnervs.BNSFRailwayCompany.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2- 23- 2021
IntheSuperiorCourtof theStateof California,Countyof LosAngeles,SpringStreetCourthouse 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- CV 10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8- 30- 2019
In theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtForTheDistrictof NewJersey Duarteet al, Plaintiffs, vs. United StatesMetals Refining Companyet. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2: 17- cv- 01624- ES- SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6- 7- 2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 8 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 TheDistrictCourtOf ReganCounty,Texas, 1121JudicialDistrict Phillip Baleset 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. Oi9- L- 2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8- 23- 2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuelvs. 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 Warm Gilbert andPennyGilber, 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 9 of 10 October 2021
In The SuperiorCourt of the Stateof Washington,County of Snohomish MichaelDavisandJulieDavisetal.,Plaintiffvs.CedarGroveCompostingInc.,Defendants Case No.: No. 13- 2- 03987- 5
RosenfeldDeposition,February2017
Trial, March 2017
In The SuperiorCourt of the Stateof California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG 14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For PoweshiekCounty
RussellD. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen,et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, WestVirginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action NO. 14- C- 30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For MuscatineCounty
Laurie Freemanet. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain ProcessingCorporation,Defendant Case No 4980
RosenfeldDeposition: May 2015
In theCircuitCourtof the171hJudicialCircuit,in andForBrowardCounty,Florida WalterHinton,et.al.Plaintiff,vs.Cityof FortLauderdale,Florida,aMunicipality,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- 1 1-0 1650- E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Courtof CommonPleasof TuscarawasCounty 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 JamesK. Benefield,et al., Plaintiffs, vs. InternationalPaperCompany,Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2: 09- cv- 232- WHA- TFM
RosenfeldDeposition:July 2010,June2011
In the Circuit Courtof JeffersonCountyAlabama
JaeanetteMoss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond CompanyInc., 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: 07CV 1052
RosenfeldDeposition:July 2009
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph. D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

EXHIBIT B

WILSON IHRIG

ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION CALIFORNIA

WASHINGTON

NEW YORK
WI# 24- 001. xx
November 8, 2024
Kelilah D. Federman
Adam Broadwell Joseph& Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SUBJECT: Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Alameda County, California
Review and Comment on Noise Study
Dear Ms. Federman,
Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the information and noise impact analysis in the following documents:

Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report, September 2024( DEIR) Appendix H Noise Supplemental Information( Appendix H)
The Proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Project ( Project) would result in the construction of 194 market- rate single family homes, a 0. 7- acre park, and off- site infrastructure improvements to support the development, including a sewer treatment plant, a water storage and pump facility, recycledwater facility, agricultural irrigation recycledwater spray fields, andtwo bioretention areas.

The project is adjacent to an age-qualified single-family residential neighborhood to the west of the site.

This letter reports our comments on the Noise Analysis in Section 3. 12 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Noise Supplemental Information in Appendix H. Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our 57 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry.

We also utilize industry- standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.
5900 HOLLIS STREET, SUITETI EMERYVILLE, CA 94608 ( 510) 658- 6719 WWW. WILSON] HRIG. COM

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Logo Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report
Adverse Effects of Noise'
Although the health effectsof noise are not taken asseriously in the United Statesasthey are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise- Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise- induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Healthand SafetyAdministration (OSHA) and the NationalInstitute for OccupationalSafetyand Health (NIOSH)promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposedto high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreasedworking capacity,and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higherthanthebackgroundnoise. Typicalindoorspeechlevelsare45 to 50dBAat 1meter,soany noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speechintelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noiselevels is to raise one'svoice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement ( REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increasedblood pressure, increased heart rate, increasein body movements,and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, peoplewhose sleepis disturbed by noiseoften experiencesecondaryeffects suchasincreased fatigue, depressedmood, and decreasedwork performance.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human' s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the fight or flight" response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people's abilities to perform complex tasks ( tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.
1 Moreinformationontheseandotheradverseeffectsof noisemaybefoundin Guidelinesfor CommunityNoise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. httPs:// www. who. int/ docstore/ peh/ noise/ Comnoise- 1.pdf) I

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Logo Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report
Potentially Significant Operational Noise Impacts
The DEIR cites The East County Area Plan ( ECAP) Program 104, which states:

The County shall require the use of noise reduction techniques ( such as buffers, building design modifications, lot orientation, soundwalls, earth berms, landscaping, building setbacks, and real estate disclosure notices) to mitigate noise impacts generated by transportation- related and stationary sources as specified in the California Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines" [ DEIR, pg. 3.12- 15].

The DEIR predicts future traffic noise levels, including project traffic increases, of 65 dBA along Busch Road [ DEIR Table 3.12- 81. These levels exceed normally acceptable community noise exposure threshold of 60 dBA for single family residences, per California Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. z Operational noise may further exceed normally acceptable levels, per discussion below on un- analyzed off- site infrastructure noise sources.

Incomplete Analysis
There is no analysis of operational noise from the off- site elements of the Project, including the proposed packaged sewer treatment plant located in Parcel B adjacent to the Project Site, as shown in Exhibit 2-6a of the DEIR( reproduced in Figure 1 below). Noisy pumps on top of separation tanks can allow noise to propagate deep into an adjoining neighborhood, especially if they are not vibration- isolated from the structure below. The nearby lake could further the issue- a smooth water surface reflects sound, and the effect can be amplified by morning and evening air inversions.

Further, the Project is being permitted concurrently with The Busch Road Senior Development, proposed for Parcel B. The DEIR makes no mention of this future development and does not assess impact of the Arroyo Lago Project off- site improvements, located in the same Parcel, on the 357 single- family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/ or assisted living units shown in the Busch Road Preliminary Application [ pg. 2].

Finally, the DEIR states that the following public comment was received during the EIR Notice of Preparation scoping period:

The Draft EIR should analyze noise impacts associated with proximity to the City of Pleasanton Operations Services Center, Fire Training Facility, and Police Department practice range" [ DEIR, pg. 3.12- 1].

Although these facilities are mentioned as dominant noise sources near the Project site [ DEIR, pg.

3.12- 10], there is no discussion of their cumulative effect on noise levels at nearby residences.

The Project should address these omissions and potential impacts.

Z https:// www. ici. ca. gov/ docs/ OPR Appendix D final. pdf

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Logo Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report
Legend
le<< ser
Aaaro-: a- ad, lg Limils IDe1g, p!— A.
1 a
t fi w'} A
i
r
NO 35C O M!
SWrCC! ire Aerial Imagery. CW C- it Eng'i, eer5, 12I2023.

Figure 1: Project Site and Off- Site Infrastructure
Construction Prediction Contains Errors
The DEIR states that construction noise levels of 78 dBA were predicted 35 feet from the" acoustic center of construction activity" and include shielding from the existing 6-foot- high sound wall located along the western boundary[ DEIR, pg. 3.12- 19]. The DEIR compares this to the Federal Transit Administration Noise Assessment Manual( FTA Manual) construction noise threshold of 80 dBA.

Appendix H shows that the calculations for grading and site preparation used 35 feet for the grader and 85 feet for the rest of the equipment [ App. H, pg. 3]. If the predictions used the distance specified in the DEIR, construction noise levels at nearby residences would be over the FTA 80 dBA threshold, as shown in Table 1. Further, the report provides no evidence in the form of measurement data, or even photos of the walls, showing that the existing barriers can provide 8 dB of shielding. Therefore, construction levels may be higher than those shown below. The Project should address this error.

Table 1: Corrected Estimated Construction Noise Levelsfor Grading and Site Preparation Lmax at Leq at Over
Usage Distance ShieldingEquipment 50 ft.

N feet) ( dB)
Ground Residence Ambient
dBA) dBA) dBA) l
grader 85 40 35 8 1 78
excavator 85 40 35 8 1 78
front end loader 80 40 35 8 1 73
backhoe 80 40 35 8 1 73
TOTAL: 82 23

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Logo Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report
Potentially Significant Construction Noise Impacts
As stated above, the DEIR compares estimated construction noise levels to the FTA Manual threshold of 80 dBA. The cited FTA document is a guidance document, and it discourages projects against using its absolute noise criteria values without consideration of local conditions [ FTA page 179, see Figure 1 below].

No standardized criteria have been developed for assessingconstruction noise impact Consequently, criteria must be developed on a project- specific basis unlesslocal ordinances apply.As stated earlier in this section, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisanceand hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land Figure 2: FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Section on Construction Noise and Vibration page 179)
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines cited in the DEIR state that impacts to noise would be significant if the proposed project would result in " generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels" [ DEIR, pg. 3.12- 181. The DEIR lacks a significance threshold for" substantial increase' for Project noise. As shown in Table 1 above, corrected estimated construction levels are 23 dBA above the measured ambient CNEL at LT- 1.

The Project must properly evaluate construction noise impacts, including the noise increase over ambient levels at sensitive receptor locations. If the increase is significant the Project must properly evaluate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant.

BaselineNoise is Not Properly Established
The manner in which the DEIR has determined the existing noise environment at sensitive receivers is unsupported. Three short-term measurements and one long-term measurement were conducted within the Project site. The report provides no evidence or discussion that these measurements are representative of levels at sensitive receivers near the Project.

Table 3. 12- 5 of the DEIR describes the short- term locations ( approximated in Figure 2 below), but the report doesnot provide a figure showing the measurements(Appendix H includes a sketch of ST- 1). The DIERstates that dominant noise sources in the project vicinity are vehicular traffic on Busch Road, the Fire Department training facility, trucks from industrial use to the south, and the Pleasanton Garbage Station and that the long- term measurement was taken on the southwest corner of the site,approximately 20 feet off BuschRoad [DEIR,pg. 3.12- 9].The report doesnot discusshow the measurement locations relate to sensitive receivers adjacent to the site. As shown in Figure 1, the residencesalong ChathamPlaceare 835 feet from BuschRoad.The Fire Department training facility is adjacent to the homes,but the activities from the facility are not well documented.Ambient levels at residences are likely between levels at ST- 1 ( 45 dBA) and LT- 1/ ST- 3 ( 59 CNEL/ 55 dBA).

I

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Logo Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report
Further, there is no discussion of baseline levels at the future Busch Road Senior Project site ( Parcel B). The project cannot properly evaluate potential impacts at the site without establishing baseline levels.

The Project must conduct properly documented ambient measurements near all sensitive receptors that capture the current baseline conditions during quiet period of the day and night to determine impact of construction and operational noise.

T- 1
I

PARCEL B
future
o
development)
Vim--
I
3S ft.

LT- / ST- 3 ST-
Y .. hy
Figure 2: Noise Measurements and Project Site
Conclusion
The Project may result in potentially significant construction and operational noise impacts. The DEIR fails to include an analysis of noise from off- site infrastructure improvements and does not evaluate impacts from those operational sources at the Busch Road Senior Project, which is being permitted concurrently with the Project. The baseline measurements are not properly documented and may not represent existing levels at residences west of the site or at the Busch Road development.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,
Ani Toncheva, Senior Consultant, WILSON IHRIG

WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS. NOISE& VIBRATION

ANI TONCHEVA
Senior Consultant
Since joining the firm in 2011, Ani has conducted analyses for transit systems, vibration sensitive research facilities, public infrastructure, construction, and other environmental noise. She has contributed to literature reviews, including research on current practices of historical preservation. She has extensive experience working on construction projects in New York City and is well versed in local noise codes.

Education
B. A., Physics; Bard College, New York
Professional Associations
Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants ( NCAC) Member, Acoustical Society of America( ASA)
Board Member, Transportation Research Forum ( TRF), NY Chapter and International board Research Paper
NCHRP 25- 25, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects
Relevant Experience
BART Berryessa Station Transit Noise Impact and Mitigation, San Jose, CA Assisted with noise predictions and barrier design recommendations.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority( MBTA) Green Line Extension ( GLX), Boston, MA Lead analyst on noise predictions and barrier design.

RTD Eagle P3 Northwest Corridor Noise and Impacts, Denver, CO Assisted with data analysis and helped prepare final technical report.

Alameda CTC, 1-880 Interchange Improvements Project( Whipple Road- Industrial Southwest and Industrial Parkway West), Hayward, CA Project Manager for traffic noise study.

Alameda CTC,I-80/ Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements, Berkeley, CAProject Manager for traffic noise study.

Millennium Bulk Terminal, Longview, WA Prepared noise analysis for the project' s NEPA and SEPA environmental impact statements.

Peninsula Humane Society& SPCA Haskin Hill Sanctuary, Loma Mar, CA Prepared an environmental study for a planned animal sanctuary in Loma Mar.

Analog( ArtX) Hotel, Palo Alto, CAPrepared preliminary basisof design guidelines for a new five- story boutique hotel in a residential area.

Sunnydale Block 3A& 3B Mixed- Use Residential Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for two, mixed- use, 5- story buildings.

WILSON IHRIG
Ani Toncheva- Page 2
Columbia University Medical Center Medical and Graduate Education Building, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey and performed attended noise measurements during preliminary construction work.

Hudson Yards Tower C Foundations and Utilities, New York, NY Conducted a baseline noise survey prior to construction work including a combination of long- term unattended and short- term attended noise measurements.

PANYNJ Lincoln Tunnel Helix Rehabilitation, NJAssisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan and implementing a remote long- term noise monitoring program at three locations.

MSK 74th Street, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey, assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan, and implemented a long- term noise monitoring program at two locations.

NYMTA No. 7 Line Subway Extension Ventilation Facility Construction, New York, NY The project involved mining and lining of two shafts and construction of a 2-story ventilation building.

NYMTA ESA/ LIRR Grand Central Terminal Fit- Out, New York, NY Prepared the Contractor' s noise and vibration control plan updates for fit- out work conducted underground at the Grand Central Terminal Suburban Level.

San Francisco Planning Department, Alameda Street Wet Weather Tunnel and Folsom Area Sewer Improvement, San Francisco, CA Noise and vibration analysis for Folsom Area stormwater infrastructure improvements.

World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise surveys, assisted in developing construction noise control plans, and implementing a remote long- term noise monitoring program.
50 Pine Street Condominiums, New York, NY
Project involved evaluating mechanical noise at residential dwelling units for NYC noise code Uptown Newport, Newport Beach, CA
Evaluation of noise levels due to mechanical equipment at adjacent property.

EXHIBIT C
HOUSINGof 1 • 1

PRELIMINARY

PURPOSE
This form serves as the preliminary application for Submittal Date Stamp* l,z• housing development projects seeking vesting rights
pursuant to SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

GENERAL INFORMATION
An applicant for a housing development project that
includes ( 1) residential units ( 2) a mix of commercial and residential uses with two-thirds of the project's
square footage used for residential purposes; or (3)
transitional or supportive housing, shall be deemed to
have submitted a preliminary application upon
provision of all of the information listed in this
Preliminary Application form and payment of the
p
Submittal of all the information listed and
payment of the permit processing fee freezespermit processing fee to the agency from which fees and development standards as of this date, approval for the project is being sought. unless exceptions per Government Code§ After submitting this Preliminary Application to the
65889. 5( 0) are triggered.
local agency, an applicant has 180 days to submit a 2Note: Record keeping pertaining to which full application or the Preliminary Application will standards and fees apply at date of submittal is imperative, as penalties may apply forexpire.
imposing incorrect standards
Notes:

1. CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA) and CoastalAct standardsapply.

2. After submittalof all of the informationrequired, if the developmentproponentrevisesthe projectto changethe numberof residentialunitsor squarefootageof constructionchangesby 20 percent or more, excluding any increase resulting from Density Bonus Law, the development proponent must resubmit the required information so that it reflects the revisions.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 1 of 8

SITE INFORMATION

1. PROJECT LOCATION - The specific location, including parcel numbers, a legal description, and site address, if applicable.

Busch Road, Unincorporated Alameda County
Street Address Unit/ Space Number
Legal Description ( Lot, Block, Tract) Attached? YES NO See attached preliminary title report with legal description Assessor Parcel Number( s) '
I-' 34- 2

2. EXISTING USES - The existing uses on the project site and identification of major physical alterations to the property on which the project is to be located.

The 61. 6 AC site is vacant and has no existing physical improvements

3. SITE PLAN - A site plan showing the building(s) location on the property and approximate square footage of each building that is to be occupied.

Attached? YES"" NO

4. ELEVATIONS - Elevations showing design, color, material, and the massing and height of each building that is to be occupied.

Attached? YES NO

5. PROPOSED USES - The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.

See attached cover letter and site plan.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 2 of 8 a. RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT COUNT:

Please indicate the number of dwelling units proposed, including a breakdown of levels by affordability, set by each income category.

Number of Units
Market Rate 455
Managers Unit s — Market Rate
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income 72
Moderate Income
Total No. of Units 569
Total No. of Affordable Units 114
Total No. of Density Bonus Units N/ A
Other notes on units:

Applicant proposes to develop 357 single- family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/ or assisted living units. 20% of the residential units will be dedicated to low- income residents. Applicant reserves right to invoke State Density Bonus Law should that become needed in the future.

6. FLOOR AREA - Provide the proposed floor area and square footage of residential and nonresidential development, by building ( attach relevant information by building and totals here):

Residential Nonresidential Total
Floor Area ( Zoning) 1, 028, 620 1028620
Square
Construction
Footage of
1 ,028, 620 1 ,028, 620

7. PARKING - The proposed number of parking spaces:
1,822 total parking spaces

8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, WAIVERS, CONCESSIONS and PARKING REDUCTIONS - Will the project proponent seek Density Bonus incentives, waivers, concessions, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915? YES® NO
If" YES," please describe:

Because Project is entitled to protections under the HAA Builder' s Remedy, it does not require a density bonus, incentives/concessions, or waivers to deviate from local zoning and General Plan standards. Applicant reserves the right to request such bonuses, incentives/ concessions or waivers to the extent it becomes necessary at a future date.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 3 of 8

9. SUBDIVISION — Will the project proponent seek any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a vesting or tentative map, or a condominium map? YES® NO®
If" YES," please describe:

The Project will require a parcel map to subdivide a portion of the Project that will include the 57 single- family residences and duet homes.

10. POLLUTANTS — Are there any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants? YES® NO®
If" YES," please describe:

11. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS — Provide the number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied. Provide attachment, if needed.

Occupied Unoccupied Total
Residential Residential Residential
Units Units Units
Existing 0 0 0
To Be Demolished 0 0 0

12. ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITIONS —
a. Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
i. A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, pursuant to Section 51178? YES® NOF
ii. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 ( June 21, 1993)?
YES® NO
iii. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code?
YES® NO
Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 4 of 8 iv. A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood ( 100-year flood) as determined by any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
YES® NO
v. A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter

12.2 (commencingwith Section8875) of Division1 of Title 2? YES® NO®
vi. A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreementpursuantto Chapter6 (commencingwith Section1600) of Division2 of the Fish and Game Code?
YES® NOE]
If" YES" to any, please describe:
b. Doesthe projectsite containhistoricand/or culturalresources? YES® NOF/
If" YES," please describe:
c. Does the project site contain any species of special concern? YES® NO
If" YES," please describe:

Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 5 of 8 d. Does the project site contain any recorded public easement, such as easements for storm drains, water lines, and other public rights of way? YES NO
If" YES," please describe:

See, please see attached Site Plan for description and location of public easements. e. Does the project site contain a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 ( commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code? Provide an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands.

YES NOFV
If" YES," please describe and depict in attached site map:

13. COASTAL ZONE - For housing development projects proposed to be located within the coastal zone, whether any portion of the property contains any of the following:
a. Wetlands, as defined in subdivision ( b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

YES NO
b. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30240 of the Public Resources Code.

YES7 NO
c. A tsunami run- up zone. YES NO 0
d. Use of the site for public access to or along the coast. YESF NOF,—/]

14. PROJECT TEAM INFORMATION - The applicant' s contact information and, if the applicant does not own the property, consent from the property owner to submit the application.

Applicant' s Name Bridget Metz
Company/ Firm USL Pleasanton Lakes. L. P.

Address 101 California Street Unit/ Space Number 800
City San Francisco State CA Zip Code 94111
Telephone 925. 364. 0898 Email bmetz@steelwavellc. com
Are you in escrow to purchase the property? YESE] NOR] Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 6 of 8 Property Owner of Record Same as applicant Different from applicant Name ( if different from applicant)
Address Unit/ Space Number
City State Zip Code
Telephone Email
Optional: Agent/ Representative Name Kevin Ashe
Company/ Firm Holland & Knight
Address 4675 MacArthur Court Unit/ Space Number 900
City Newport Beach State CA Zip Code 92660
Telephone 415. 743. 6972 Email kevin. ashe@hklaw. com
Optional: Other ( Specify Architect, Engineer, CEQA Consultant, etc.) Arch itect Name Robert Lee
Company/ Firm WHA Architects
Address 5000 Executive Parkway Unit/ Space Number 375
City San Ramon State CA Zip Code 94582
Telephone 925. 463. 1700 Email robert@whainc. com
Primary Contact for Project: Owner Applicant Agent/ Representative Other Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 7 of 8

PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
Before the application can be accepted, the owner of each property involved must provide a signature to verify the Preliminary Application is being filed with their knowledge. Staff will confirm ownership based on the records of the City Engineer or County Assessor. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership entity so authorized may sign as stipulated below.

Ownership Disclosure. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, a disclosure identifying the agent for service or process or an officer of the ownership entity must be submitted. The disclosure must list the names and addresses of the principal owners ( 25 percent interest or greater). The signatory must appear in this list of names. A letter of authorization, as described below, may be submitted provided the signatory of the letter is included in the Ownership Disclosure. Include a copy of the current partnership agreement, corporate articles, or trust document as applicable.

Letter of Authorization ( LOA). A LOA from a property owner granting someone else permission to sign the Preliminary Application form may be provided if the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, or in rare circumstances when an individual property owner is unable to sign the Preliminary Application form. To be considered for acceptance, the LOA must indicate the name of the person being authorized to file, their relationship to the owner or project, the site address, a general description of the type of application being filed and must also include the language in items 1- 3 below. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the LOA must be signed by the authorized signatory as shown on the Ownership Disclosure or in the case of private ownership by the property owner. Proof of Ownership for the signatory of the LOA must be submitted with said letter.

Grant Deed. ProvideCopy of the Grant Deedif the ownershipof the propertydoes not match local records. The Deed must correspond exactly with the ownership listed on the application.

Multiple Owners. If the property is owned by more than one individual ( e. g., John and Jane Doe, or Mary Smith and Mark Jones) signatures are required of all owners.

1. I herebycertifythat I am the ownerof recordof the hereinpreviouslydescribedpropertylocatedin which is involved in this Preliminary Application, or have been empowered to sign as the owner on behalf of a partnership, corporation, LLC, or trust as evidenced by the documents attached hereto.

2. 1herebyconsentto the filing of this PreliminaryApplicationon my propertyfor processingby the Department of for the sole purpose of vesting the proposed housingproject subjectto the Planningand Zoning ordinances, policies, and standardsadopted and in effect on the date that this Preliminary Application is deemed complete.

3. Further, I understand that this Preliminary Application will be terminated and vesting will be forfeited if the housingdevelopmentproject is revisedsuch that the numberof residentialunits or square footage of construction increases or decreases by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, and/or an application requesting approval of an entitlement is not filed with within 180 days of the date that the Preliminary Application is deemed complete.

4. By my signaturebelow, I certifythat the foregoingstatementsare true and correct.

Signature See attached ownership disclosure form Signature See attached ownership disclosure form Printed Name Printed Name
Date Date
Housing Crisis Act of 2019( SB 330) Preliminary Application Form ( Revised April 9, 2020) Page 8 of 8

EXHIBIT D
Holland & Knight
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 1San Francisco, CA 94105 1T 415. 743.6900 1F 415.743.6910 Holland& Knight LLP I www. hkiaw. com
Kevin J. Ashe
1 415- 743- 6972
Kevin. Ashe@hklaw. com
June 4, 2024
Via Email
Albert Lopez
Planning Director
Planning Department
224 W. Winton Avenue, Rm I I I
Hayward, CA 94544
Re: Submittal of SB 330 Preliminary Application for" Builder' s Remedy" Project at Busch Rd., Alameda County, APN 946-4634-002
Dear Mr. Lopez and County Planning Department Staff:

Our firm represents USL Pleasanton Lakes L. P. (" Owner" and " Applicant"), owner of approximately 118. 4 acres of vacant land located at Busch Road ( APN 946- 4634- 002) ( the Property") in the County of Alameda ( the " County"). Applicant hereby submits a preliminary application pursuant to Senate Bill(" SB") 330to developa 61.6-acresouthwesternportion of the Propertywith qualifiedseniorhousing (agerestrictedfor 55 yearsandolder) of thefollowing producttypes: 357single-family residencesandduethomesand212multifamilyindependent and/or assistedliving units (the" Project").'
I. Project Description
As explainedabove, Applicant is proposingto developa 61.6-acresouthwesternportion of the Property' intoa seniorhousingdevelopmentprojectconsistingof 357single-familyresidences andduethomesand212 multifamily seniorindependentand/or assistedliving units. The single- family andduethomeswill requirea parcelmappursuantto the SubdivisionMap Act to independentlysubdivide, andthe212multifamilyseniorindependentand/or assistedliving units will belocatedin a 208,000 sq. ft. apartmentbuilding to thenorth-centralportion of theProperty.

Of the 569 total units, twenty percent ( 20%) will be dedicated to low- income (" LI") residents.

The Project will also include approximately 1,822 parking spaces, Gov. Code§ 65589. 5.
2The easternportions of thePropertyarenot proposedfor developmentatthis time.

AtlantaIAustinIBirminghamI BostonICenturyCityI CharlotteIChattanoogaI ChicagoI DallasIDenverI FortLauderdale HoustonI JacksonvilleI LosAngelesI Miami I NashvilleI NewportBeachI NewYork I OrlandoI Philadelphia Portland I Richmond I San Francisco I Stamford I Tallahassee I Tampa I Tysons I Washington, D. C. I West Palm Beach Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

and an internal circulation system to accommodate bike and vehicular travel as well as ingress and egressto the Property. The Project will include a 6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse amenity spacefor residents to congregate and dine, as well as an open space courtyard and activity space for outdoor recreationaluses (e.g., potentially an amphitheater, bocceball court, pool andpool house) on a

6. 5- acre portion of the site. The senior residential housing architecture style consists of contemporaryand traditional character. The higher density independent/assistedliving and the senior clubhouse/restaurant will be designed in a contemporary form, while the single-family and duets are more traditional architecture style to provide two very distinct styling for the senior housing market. Applicant's goal is to develop an aesthetically appealing and charming communitywhereseniorresidentscanenjoy all the amenitiesandsocialvalue the Projecthasto offer.

II. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or" SB 330," created important new protections for housing developments:

Preliminaa Application - SB 330 specifies, as of effective January 1, 2020, an application is " deemed complete" if a qualifying " preliminary application" has been submitted.
3 Accordingly, a project shall be deemedto have submitteda qualifying preliminary applicationuponproviding the local agencywith all information specified in Gov. Code § 65941. 1( a).

Vested Rights - With the submission of the preliminary application, the Project will be deemedcomplete.4As such,theProjectwill havevestedrights to developin accordance with the regulations, policies and fees applicable to the Project in effect upon this deemed complete" date.

Completeness Review Limitations — Once an applicant submits a formal application within 180daysof thepreliminaryapplication,theCountymustprovideApplicant with an" exhaustive list of items that were not complete" within 30 days. After that, no further requests can be made for items not on the initial list of deficiencies. 5 Hearing Limit- In addition, SB 330limits thetotal numberof hearingsthat canbeheld on the Modified Project to five ( 5). Gov. Code § 65905.5(b) defines a " hearing" to include " any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conductedby the local agency with respect to the housing development project," whether by the legislative body of thelocal agency, theplanningagencyor anyotheragencythereof.

Applicant herebysubmitsan SB 330 preliminary applicationusing the California Departmentof Housing and Community Development (" HCD") prescribed form, which is attached hereto. 3 Gov. Code§ 65589. 5( h)( 5).

Gov. Code§ 65589. 5( h)( 5).

Gov. Code§ 65943.
503315009_ vl
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Applicant intends to submit a formal land use application within 180 days of this preliminary application. 6
III. The HAA" Builder' s Remedy"
In enacting the Housing Accountability Act (" HAA") ( Gov. Code Sec. 65589. 5 et seq.), our Legislature declared that a lack of housing " is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California." Under the HAA, a local agency cannot deny a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income household, unless it makes one of five stringent findings in Gov. Code § 65589.5, subdivision(d).8 Onesuchfinding under subdivision( d)( 5) is:

The housing development project ... is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction' s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemedcomplete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article."
Critical to this determination is a substantially- compliant housing element. Without one, a jurisdiction cannot deny a project that conflicts with the local agency's applicable development standards under its General Plan or Zoning Code. This is colloquially known as the " Builder' s Remedy."
Here, the Project is a " housing development project" as defined in the HAA because it is a development consisting of residential and residential amenities useswith at least two thirds of the squarefootagedesignatedforresidentialuse."9Moreover,theProjecthascommittedtoproviding 20 percent low- income dwelling units.

IV. The Project Has Vested to the Current Status of the County' s Sixth Cycle Housing Element
By submitting an SB 330 preliminary application with the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1, Applicant has obtained a vestedright to develop the Project in accordancewith the applicablepolicies, ordinances,andstandardsin effect when the preliminary application is submitted." HCD hasconfirmed on multiple occasionsthat suchvestedrights include a right to proceed under the 6 Gov. Code§ 65941. 1( d)( 1).

Gov. Code§ 65589. 5( a).

For purposesof the HAA, housingfor very low-, low-, or moderate-incomehouseholdsis definedashaving at least 20 percent of units set aside for low- income residents or 100% of units set aside for moderate- or middle- income residents.
9§ 65589. 5( h)( 2).
10Gov. Code§ 65589. 5( o)( 1).
503315009 v1
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Housing Element compliance status in effect at the time of preliminary application submittal." In guidance materials issued to local agencies, HCD has confirmed that:

When a preliminary application" submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction' s noncompliant status . . . remain throughout the entitlement process even if' the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process."
12 This principle wasalsorecentlyconfirmedin the first builder'sremedytrial courtdecisionin Los Angeles Superior Court, in the caseof California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge et. al."
Here, on January4, 2024, HCD foundthat theCounty'sDecember21, 2023draft housing elementdidnotsubstantiallycomplywith statehousingelementlaw.14Applicantunderstands that the County recently submitted a revised draft of its Housing Element to HCD on May 10, 2024. As of today'sdate,HCD hasnot certified theCounty'sHousingElementasbeingin substantialcompliancewith statehousingelementlaw. PertheCounty'swebsite, if HCD certifies the County' s revised draft housing element, " CDA staff and consultant team will finalize Housing Element. Planning Commission& Board of Supervisors will hold public hearingsfor adoption."15If HCD doesnot certify thedraft HousingElement, CDA staff and consultant team will revise the second draft of the Housing Element to addressHCD' s comments asneeded; give public noticeof secondcommentperiod on HousingElement; andsubmitthird HousingElementdraftto HCDforreview.16
Thus, asof today's date,theCountyhasnot adopteda HousingElementthat substantially complieswith statehousingelementlaw. Accordingly, the Projectis entitledto (andhasvested) to processing under the HAA' s Builder' sRemedy.

V. State Density Bonus Law
Under State Density Bonus Law(" SDBL"),
17 20% LI projects are entitled to a 35% density
bonus, two ( 2) incentive/ concession from developments standards, and unlimited waivers from developmentstandardsthatphysicallyprecludedevelopmentof theproject at thedensitysought. 11See HCD, 3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica— Letter of Technical Assistance( Oct. 5, 2022), at 2, hops•//wwwhcdcagov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica-TA-100522.pdf 123030 Nebraska Avenue— Letter of Technical Assistance, at 2. 13Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614, Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief( Mar. 4, 2024).
14 hlWs:// www. ac ogv_ orp-/ cdg/ plannin ousing_
element/ documents/ AlamedaCountyInitialDraftHousingElementLetterl 4 2024. pdf AlamedaCounty HousingElementUpdate2023-203,( accessedon June3, 2024),availableat hgps•// www. ac ogv_ org/ cdLpllannin ousing-element/housing-element.htm 161d.
17§65913.160)(1)(C).
503315009_ vl
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

However, becausethe Project is entitled to protections under the Builder' s Remedy, it technically does not need a density bonus to accommodate its proposed density( 9.2 du/ac), or waivers from inconsistent development standards in the County' s General Plan or Zoning Code.

However, Applicant reservesthe right to request such a density bonus, incentives, or waivers to the extent such becomes necessaryduring the County' s processing and review of the Project.

VI. CEQA
Although HAA- covered projects are not automatically exempt from CEQA, the limited discretion agencies have in reviewing such projects has implications on the CEQA process. As one leading treatise states: "[ w] hen the discretion a lead agency may exercise in granting an approval for a project is confined, CEQA review for that approval may be limited to match the scopeof thatdiscretion."18This legalprinciple wasaffirmed in TiburonOpenSpaceCommittee v. County of Marin( 2022) 78 Cal. App. 5th 700 (` Tiburon"), in which the court noted:

CEQA ... recognizes that an agency' s discretion is limited by its own legal obligations.

Accordingly, where a legal obligation limits an agency' s discretion, the scope of environmental review likewise is limited. This is also consistent with CEQA' s requirement that an agency exercise its discretionary powers in a manner `consistent with expressor implied limitations providedby otherlaws."19 Applicant welcomes the opportunity to discuss( or present) potential CEQA pathways for the County'sconsideration. Regardlessof the scopeof CEQA review for this Project,theCounty should ensurethat environmental review is confined to those issuesover which it possesses discretionary authority— specifically,potentialpublichealthandsafetyimpacts.20 VII. Conclusion
Applicant looks forward to collaborating with County Planning staff to ensure this much-needed housingProjectcomesto fruition. Shouldanyquestionsariseastheprocessproceeds,pleasedo hesitate to reach out to discuss this project further.
g
Kostka& Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act( 2d ed. Cal. CEB 2023)§ 12. 8 19See, Tiburon, 78 Cal.App.5th at 732-33 (internalquotationsomitted)( emphasisadded);seealso SanDiego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego( 2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 924, 938(" Where an agency has no authorityto modify aproject basedon the analysiscontainedin theEIR, thereis no basisfor requiring the agencyto prepare the EIR.").
20HAA, subdivision (d)(5) provides that local agenciescannot deny or render infeasible affordable housing developmentprojectsunlessthey makeone of five enumeratedfindings, oneof which is that" housingdevelopment would have a specific adverseimpact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the developmentunaffordable.The impact mustbe basedon objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete."( Gov. Code 65589. 5( d)( 2).) 503315009_ vl
Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
i
Kevin J. Ashe
Tamsen Plume
503315009_ vl

EXHIBIT E
p
FOR/ y
1 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
1720 North First Street
4,
ER st•``
I San Jose, CA 95112- 4598 Tel: ( 408) 367- 8200
November 11, 2022
Alameda County Community Development Agency
Mr. Rodrigo Orduna
Deputy Planning Director
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, Ca 94544
Will Serve
Tract or Parcel Map No: PM 11230
Owner: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P.

Dear Mr. Orduna,
California Water Service Company Livermore district(" Cal Water") has determined that adequate water is available to serve the above- referenced project based on the information provided and the plans by the " development" to drill wells on site and equip them with necessary pumps and storage. And also to have an emergency connection with Zone 7". Cal Water is committed to operate the water and related sewer system to provide service in accordance with the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC) and the company' s approved tariffs on file with the CPUC.

Installation of facilities shall be made in accordance with the current rules and regulations of the CPUCincluding, among others, Tariff Rules 15 and 16 and General Order 103-A. In order for us to provide adequate sewer and water for domestic use as well as fire service protection, it may be necessary for the development to contain facilities, such as, but not limited to, booster pumps, storage tanks and/ or water wells.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please call me at( 408)367-8558.

Sincerely,
Paul Townsley
VP, Corporate Development
California Water Service Company
cc: Rashmi Kashyap— Cal Water Engineering Dept
File
Quality. Service. Value.
calwater. com
O
n

EXHIBIT F
p '

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
Livermore District 195 South N Street
trFRSEa`` "
Livermore, CA 94550 Tel: ( 925) 447- 4900
October 12, 2023
Ms. Aubrey Rose
Planner
Alameda County Planning Dept
224 West Winton Ave, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
RE: Case No.: PLN2022- 00193
Dear Ms. Rose:

California Water Service (Cal Water) would like to comment on the 41hreferral application for PLN2022- 00193/ USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P./ 330 Land Company, L.L.C., Vesting Tentative Tract Map( TR- 8423). Within the applicant response to County comments and their attached documentation, multiple statements are made about the water infrastructure and Cal Water' s ability to provide water supply to the new development.

CalWater iscurrently working with USLPleasantonLakes, L.P.,to developa Letterof Agreement LOA)to providewater serviceto the new development. This LOAhasnot beenfinalizedasof the date of this letter, and is still under negotiation. USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P., has spoken to Zone 7 Water Agency directly, and has contracted with another firm to evaluate the water system capabilities separate from Cal Water.

Cal Water has not evaluated the forecasted water system needs of this development, the ability of Zone 7 to serve this new development under the existing Cal Water contract, nor conducted a review of the water system evaluation of this new development. As such, all claims in the documentation regardingthe availabilityof water for the developmenthavenot beenvalidated by Cal Water, the future water purveyor for this development.

Additionally,the statementsin the letter regardingthe pendingprocessand letters with the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC), Zone 7 Water Agency, and the Division of Drinking Water( DDW), have also not been validated.

Cal Water will continue to work with USLPleasanton Lakes, L.P. to finalize and validate the statementsandthe water supplycapability uponagreementandexecutionof a LOA, but at this time cannot validate the statements.

Cal Water is glad to answer any questions regarding this development given the information that we currently have to date.

Quality. Service. Value.
calwater. com
O
pFOlt

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
4'
rERSEa,`
Sincerely,
51-
John Freeman
Livermore District Manager
Cc: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L. P. ( rwada@steewavellc. com) Steve Reilly( sreilly@landadvisors. com)
Shilen Patel, Chief Corporate Development Officer
Scott Wagner, Director of Water Resources
Patrick Kalvass, Distribution Engineering Manager
Robert Seeley, Regional Community Affairs Specialist
Quality. Service. Value. C
calwater. com
oC
2n

EXHIBIT G

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
GEoTRACKER

CASE SUMMARY
REPORT DATE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT FILED WITH OES? 9/ 13/ 2016
I. REPORTED BY- CREATED BY

UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
III. SITE LOCATION

FACILITY NAME FACILITY ID

USL PLEASANTON LAKES- LONG- TERM MONITORING

FACILITYADDRESS ORIENTATION OF SITE TO STREET
3000 BUSCH RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566 CROSS STREET

ALAMEDA COUNTY
V. SUBSTANCES RELEASED/ CONTAMINANT( S) OF CONCERN

ARSENIC

CHROMIUM
COPPER
DIESEL
LEAD
NICKEL

OTHER METAL

WASTE OIL/ MOTOR/ HYDRAULIC/ LUBRICATING
ZINC
VI. DISCOVERY/ ABATEMENT

DATE DISCHARGE BEGAN

DATE DISCOVERED HOW DISCOVERED DESCRIPTION
1/ 1/ 1965

DATE STOPPED STOP METHOD DESCRIPTION
VII. SOURCE/ CAUSE

SOURCE OF DISCHARGE CAUSE OF DISCHARGE
Other Other

DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
VIII. CASE TYPE

CASE TYPE
Soil
Other Groundwater( uses other than drinking water)
IX. REMEDIAL ACTION

NO REMEDIAL ACTIONS ENTERED
X. GENERAL COMMENTS
USL Pleasanton is planning the development of the entire former Hanson Radum Aggregates Facility comprised of approximately 1,000 acres. The Hanson Radum Aggregates Facility is regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) under two existing voluntary remedial action program (VRAP) cases R00002941 and R0002952. USL Pleasanton is seeking regulatory closure for three parcels contained within this former facility where potential environmental impacts from the former mining operations have been adequately investigated and delineated, and found to not present an adverse risk to human health or the environment. Regulatory closure and redevelopment approval of the former facility*' s other four parcels will be addressed separately. ACDEH has opened this new VRAP case no. R00003228 to evaluate the proposed site development and potentially close the three parcels ( Parcels D, E and F) to facilitate subsequent development while continuing to provide regulatory oversight of the remaining parcels of the facilityunderVRAPcasesR00002941andR0002952. The majorityof thesethreeparcelsarecontainedwithin Alameda County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 946Q- 1250A- 6Q- 4 and 946A- 1350Q-3A]- 2, while the northern extent of Parcel E is also within Alameda County APNs 946A- 1250A- 640-5 and 94640-1350Q- 3Q- 13 and the northern extent of Parcel F is also within Alameda County APN 946*- 1250Q- 6*- 5.

XI. CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION REPORTED HEREIN
IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

XII. REGULATORY USE ONLY

LOCAL AGENCY CASE NUMBER REGIONAL BOARD CASE NUMBER
R00003228

LOCALAGENCY

CONTACT NAME INITIALS ORGANIZATION NAME EMAILADDRESS
DILAN ROE DR ALAMEDA COUNTY LOP dilan. roe@acgov. org

ADDRESS CONTACT DESCRIPTION
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway
ALAMEDA, CA 94502

PHONE TYPE PHONE NUMBER EXTENSION
sPHONE 510)- 567- 6767

REGIONAL BOARD

CONTACT NAME INITIALS ORGANIZATION NAME EMAILADDRESS
Cherie McCaulou CCM SAN FRANCISCO BAY RWQCB ( REGION 2) cherie. mccaulou@waterboards. ca. gov

ADDRESS CONTACT DESCRIPTION
1515 CLAY STREET. SUITE 1400
OAKLAND, CA 94612

PHONE TYPE PHONE NUMBER EXTENSION
Office 510)- 622- 2342
Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Contact Us
Copyright© 2024 State of California
apm! D aowag x3Pad
luamoaas's;!wpawi;;ou;s ulq;innpal!;aq;snwswielouapiM-apm!Daouuaginouipalsllswat!jaq;o puesluawnilsu!algei;o6au 'slejewsnoload tilamef. 6' a' 000, L$ si amen tieuipJoeJ; xa; o swel! jol wnwixelnl- ssol pa; uawnoop len; oe pa9ox9; 0uueo tianooa - anlen pajeloap pazuogane ay;J0003 toJa;eWbaqlo;pallwllsileioadsio' lelluanbasuoo'le;uappow'joampJag;agnnabeweptoswjolJaq;0 pue's;soo'seals,/fawolle lad 'asajapawoou!'sales10ssol'a6eoeday;toanlenolsuu;u!buipnloui 'sso!Xuecolx3padwal JanooaJ01;g6umo),-AlddeapmE)aovuag x3Padluajlnoaq;u!punolsuogelpi-lwleloAlawga al!l puessollenloejnoAjuawnoop'a6jegoleuog!ppeueAed 'amenJGgblqa aeloapnog(ssalun uol;ewaoluisiwjo'Aaanllapsnu'tianllap-uou 'Aelap'abeLuep'ssolto; lnsaiaq;jaglagnn'a6e oedjad 00L$to ssaoxeu!wieloAueaolalq!suodsaiaq ouII!Mx3Padwooxapalu0algellene'apmE)aolnaagx3pa7.1luaiinoaqluisuoll!puooaolniasaq;o;;uawaoibejnoAsa;n;gsuoowalsAsslq;toasn jagwnu; un000e x3Pad inoi( to uogelleoueo aq; g;!nnbuole' sabjego 6wll!q leuoll!ppe ul;insaipinoopue;ualnpneils!sesodind6ulddlgsjol lagelslgltoAd000logda 6ulsn -6wddlgsjol lagellew6uopaluudaq;Aiuoasn:BuiujeM pauueospuepeaj aq ueolagelaq;to uolliodapoojeqaq;;eq;os; uawdlgsjnoAof l! xllle puegonod6ulddlgsui lageleoeld'£ aull leluozuoq aq; buole abed paluud aq; plod- Z
jeluud lafjui jo easel jnoA of laqel anon(luud o; abed slq; uo uolanq,;uud, aql asn- L lagefslq; Bulluijd jal!`d
4o9J1 31Zf' 89 nnLOiLZNi0L5if
Q H CO
CD CD
O Q
ch t7 L Q
Z
N N W
W n
6] IL
W
wmw m J p O v
Q m
u-
w
w LLI
v 0z O ' N a OC
oM N J W O
C)
U
J
O (
U Z
arIjO
cD
0 Lu
0 oo
o U 12
CV)
J ~
a m U U
aww
0 Z Z
J O V.
w Z= Z ZZ
m Qin3 co
owQ4 Q O
Q
OM0 Z Q 2 Q r
pwmw ou Lu M Lu m
Z0cna
Cco m CL
Gpo Oz vz o
00a, o u)- 0
fsliaae- i inoi wua- Ja6eueini diuc x: ioaa
IAIA 17* 7 C71b17