Supplemental Materials 3-18-25 — Pleasanton City Council, March 18, 2025

Submitted On:

Mar 18, 2025, 10:40AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Kelly
Last Name: Cousins
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 10:03 AM
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 pm
Agenda Item Number Item #18
Comments Dear City Council and Staff, Please consider another site for the massive 697 (plus 100 inclusionary units) new homes proposed for the East Side of Pleasanton. The area was deemed unsuitable (earned a zero in RHNA metrics) for residential zoning in the current Housing Element RHNA allotment and was a very unpopular plan as seem by 1000+ residents in 2012and 2017 (East Side Specific Plan) due to the same concerns: Traffic, Schools and City Services impacts; Water concerns, Safety concerns for residential development near the quarries and future roads adjacent to drinking water supplies, zone 7 objection, airport protection areas, and the Urban Growth Boundary infringement. There is no existing infrastructure for such a large development and the considerable costs of extending El Charro to Stanley (including a multimillion dollar underpass for avoiding the railway, make this not only costly to the City of Pleasanton but the developers who have to add these amenities and infrastructure to their projects. The 797 households could potentially add 7970 car trips per day to their projects already impacted neighborhoods in the area and to connector streets including First, Bernal, Santa Rita and Valley. Settlement in the area is also a concern as well as surrounding businesses such Pleasanton Garbage and the Gravel Companies were opposed to this type of large scale residential development so close to their businesses. The EIR is old and doesn’t meet the current needs of this project.

Thank you for trying to meet the demands for residential housing by developers in another way. The smaller number of age restricted residential development was a plausible idea.

Pleasanton residents deserve more consideration than developer’s speculation on what was very undesirable property.

Thank you,
Kelly Cousins
Submitted On:

Mar 18, 2025, 11:17AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Kelilah
Last Name: Federman
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 06:00 AM
Meeting Type Special Meeting
Agenda Item Number 18
Comments Please see uploaded Comments re Agenda Item No. 18.

Upload File(s) 7736-009acp - Agenda Item 18 - East Lakes Residential Development Project and Attachment 1.pdf

7736-009acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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

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

printed on recycled paper

March 18, 2025

Via Online Submission
https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment

Via Email and Overnight Mail
Mayor Jack Balch
Honorable Councilmembers:

Re: A genda Item 18 - East Lakes Residential Development Project in East Pleasanton

Dear Mayor Balch, Honorable Councilmembers, Ms. Denis:

On behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents”), we submit these comments regarding the City of Pleasanton (“City”) City Council (“Council”) Agenda Item 18 addressing the East Lakes Residential Development Project (“East Lakes Project”) in East Pleasanton. The Agenda for the March 18, 2025 City Council hearing indicates that the Council will “Review and provide initial input on applicant-proposed East Lakes Residential Development Project in East Pleasanton.”
1 East Bay Residents asks the Council to direct Staff to prepare a single environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects, to address the new East Lakes Project description and significant environmental, public health, noise, and cumulative impacts associated with the City’s annexation and entitlement actions for the Projects.

1 City of Pleasanton, City Council Regular Meeting Agenda (March 18, 2025 7:00 PM).

March 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

7736-009acp

printed on recycled paper
East Bay Residents2 submitted comments to the Council ahead of the February 18, 2025 City Council hearing.3 On February 18, 2025, the Council directed Staff to accept and process applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects for annexation and development in Pleasanton.4 The Agenda Report for the March 18, 2025 City Council meeting includes an entirely new Project description for the East Lakes Project.5 The Agenda Report does not resolve East Bay Residents’ concerns regarding the significant environmental impacts of the Project, nor provide additional measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Increasing the density of the Project through the Agenda Report’s revised Project description will only exacerbate the significant environmental impacts identified by East Bay Residents in prior comments to the City. The new Project description and related changes must be thoroughly analyzed and included in a new or revised DEIR.

The new Project description is the Applicant’s Preferred East Lakes Project Alternative which includes 697 Units with 490 non-age restricted units, 107 age- restricted/active adult units, 100 multi-family affordable units in the Livermore Airport Planning Area APN 946-4634-2.
6 Alternative 2 includes a total of 628 units
with 540 not-age restricted units, and 88 age-restricted units. The County received a previous entitlement application for the East Lakes Project which proposed 357 single-family age-restricted homes and 88 age-restricted assisted living units, for a total of 445 units, to be located on APN 946-4634-2 (the same parcel proposed for the Arroyo Lago Project’s offsite improvements).7

2 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. EBRRD supports sustainable East Bay development. 3 East Bay Residents February 18, 2025 comments are attached hereto as Attachment 1.

East Bay Residents February 4, 2025 comments are attached hereto as Attachment A. 4 City of Pleasanton, City Council Agenda Report, Item #18 (March 18, 2025) (hereinafter “Agenda Report”) p. 1 of 12.
5 Agenda Report, p. 1.
6 Agenda Report, Attachment 1 Draft East Lakes Pleasanton City Plan Project Description (Feb. 28, 2025), p. 1.
7 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); City of Pleasonton 2/4/25 Staff Report, p.2 (describing revised East Lakes Project application filed in October 2024).

March 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

7736-009acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 8 In October 2024, East Bay Residents submitted comments to the County on the Arroyo Lago DEIR which provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the County’s DEIR failed to comply with CEQA.9 The DEIR impermissibly piecemealed its description of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects by failing to analyze the 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. The Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects are part of a single overarching development which must be analyzed in a single EIR to address the environmental consequences of the overall development.
10 East Bay Residents’ DEIR comments, supported by expert analysis, also demonstrated that annexation and development of the Projects have significant, unmitigated air quality, public health, noise, greenhouse gas, and cumulative impacts.11 The City must assume the role of lead agency for both Projects’ entitlement process and environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
12 in order to adequately analyze and
mitigate the Projects’ significant environmental impacts.

8 County of Alameda, Arroyo Lago Residential Project Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (May 12, 2023) Exhibit 6, identifying USL Pleasanton Lakes as owner of parcels APN 946-1350-3-10 and APN 946-4634-2.
9 East Bay Residents’ DEIR comments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 10 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. 11 East Bay Residents’ 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 to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit A. East Bay Residents’ 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 to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit B.
12 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR” §§ 15000 et seq.

March 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

7736-009acp

printed on recycled paper
Construction of the East Lakes Project would violate the Livermore Airport Land Use Compatibility (“ALUC”) Plan.13 The Agenda Report does not clarify how the Project would be brought in conformance with the ALUC and instead recommends analysis to review whether the City should override an ALUC non- compliance determination. This nonconformance must be analyzed in a new or revised DEIR. Further, significant noise impacts from the airport to sensitive receptors including residents of the East Lakes Projects must be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible before the Project can lawfully proceed.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in East Bay Residents prior comments 14, the
East Lakes Project site may be contaminated with perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (“PFAS”). The Agenda Report makes no mention of the potentially significant PFAS contamination on and adjacent to the Project site. The DEIR prepared for the Arroyo Lago Project recognized that PFAS was not quantified on the Project site and was not included in the Phase I environmental site assessment for the Project.
15 The State Water 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 CA0110008_004_004. 16 Elevated PFAS
concentrations were discovered in Zone 7 Water Agency Livermore Valley groundwater supply wells in 2019, with concentrations highest near Livermore Municipal Airport and in southwest Pleasanton near the Project site. 17 The Water
Agency Zone 7 commented on the DEIR’s Notice of Preparation 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.” 18 The DEIR failed to analyze or mitigate the potential PFAS contamination within the Project vicinity. PFAS contamination is a significant environmental and public health impact for the East Lakes Project and must be analyzed in an EIR concurrently with the Arroyo Lago Project, as required by CEQA.

13 Agenda Report, p. 10 of 12.
14 Attachment A.
15 DEIR, Appendix F: Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire Supporting Information, p. 2. 16 California Water Resources Control Board Portal, California PFAS Investigation Site Map (Jan. 23, 2024).
17 DEIR Appendix A: EIR Noticing and Public Involvement, pdf p. 58 of 208. 18 Id.

March 18, 2025

Page 5 ends

7736-009acp

printed on recycled paper
The City is required to fully comply with CEQA review prior to approving any Project-related entitlements, including any annexation-related approvals for the East Lakes Project. The proposed annexations would be the first obligation of City resources towards approval of the Project.19 In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, the California Supreme Court concluded that a city’s “conditional agreement to sell land for private development, coupled with financial support, public statements, and other actions by its officials committing the city to the development, was, for CEQA purposes, an approval of the project that was required… to have been preceded by preparation of an EIR.” 20 In Save Tara, the
city had expressed its favor for the project, defended it publicly, devoted substantial public resources to it, and announced a detailed agreement to go forward with the project, all without CEQA review. The Court held that this approach violated CEQA.

Similarly here, the City’s proposal to proceed with annexation of the Project sites triggers the City’s duty to fully examine the Projects’ conformance with CEQA in a single EIR prior to approval. The proposed action by the City Council to proceed with the East Lakes application is the first step towards Project approval, and requires CEQA compliance prior to approval.

We urge the City Council to direct City staff to fully comply with CEQA and prepare a single EIR analyzing the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects prior to taking any action on approval, annexation, or entitlements 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

Attachment
KDF:acp

19 Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131. 20 Id.

Attachment 1

7357-017acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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

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

printed on recycled paper

February 18, 2025

Via Online Submission
https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment

Via Email and Overnight Mail
Mayor Jack Balch
Honorable Councilmembers:

Re: Agenda Item 9: Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project Applications for Annexation

Dear Mayor Balch, Honorable Councilmembers, Ms. Denis:

We write on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”)
1 regarding the City of Pleasanton (“City”) City
Council’s (“Council”) Agenda Item 9, the continued hearing regarding proposed annexation and development of the Arroyo Lago Residential Project SCH No. 2023050339) (“Arroyo Lago Project”) and the East County Lakes Senior Housing Project (“East Lakes Project”) in the City.

1 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. EBRRD supports sustainable East Bay development.

February 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

7357-017acp

printed on recycled paper
East Bay Residents asks the City Council to direct City Staff to prepare a single environmental impact report (“EIR”) to analyze the environmental, public services, utilities, and public health impacts associated with the proposed annexation, construction and operation of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects in the City.

The Agenda item, continued from the February 4, 2025 Council hearing, indicates that the City Council will “Receive update on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton, outside the City Limits and 1) Provide direction to proceed with applications for annexation and development in Pleasanton; 2) Provide feedback on key issues relative to the two projects; 3) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project; and 4) Approve Key Terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project.”
2 The Agenda Report (“Staff Report”) and attachments include the same documents and analysis that were provided to the Council prior to the February 4, 2025 hearing. The Agenda Report does not attach, acknowledge or respond to comments submitted by East Bay Residents and other members of the public in response to the February 4 Agenda Report.

East Bay Residents submitted written comments to the City Council on February 4, 2025
3 explaining that, as the new approving agency for both Projects and a lead agency for annexation, the City must assume the role of lead agency for both Projects’ entitlement process and environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).4 The comments further explained that the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects are part of a single overarching development which must be analyzed in a single EIR to address the environmental consequences of the overall development.5 The Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project share a common property owner, would undergo concurrent development and operation, and may occupy the same parcel, APN 946- 4634-2. Although the projects are being processed under separate applications, they represent a single combined development proposal for residential and mixed-use development of the Project sites. CEQA requires the effects of this development to be analyzed as a whole.6

2 City of Pleasanton, City Council Agenda (Feb. 4, 2025). 3 EBRRD’s 2/4/2025 comments are attached hereto as Attachment A. 4 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR” §§ 15000 et seq. 5 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. 6 Id.; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396; Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 690, 698 (EIR must analyze environmental effects of multiple proposals if related activities are integral parts of same project ).

February 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

7357-017acp

printed on recycled paper
The Agenda Report fails to acknowledge or respond to East Bay Residents’ comments and continues to incorrectly proposal two separate CEQA documents:

Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms: CEQA
The City will complete environmental review of the Arroyo Lago project consistent with [CEQA]. To the extent allowed by CEQA, the City will utilize the Arroyo Lago Environmental Impact Report prepared by Alameda County as the basis for the City’s CEQA review. The applicant will provide the City with timely information and materials as needed to support the City’s CEQA review of the project.
7 East Lakes Application Process: CEQA Review
The City will serve as the lead agency and will complete environmental review of the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act as follows: The City will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project…The City aims to publish a draft EIR for the project within six months of finalizing the project description.
8 There is substantial evidence in the City’s record demonstrating that approach would not comply with CEQA.

Moreover, the City cannot rely on the Draft EIR prepared for the Arroyo Lago Project absent substantial revisions and recirculation. As EBRRD’s February 4 comments explained, the Arroyo Lago Draft EIR described annexation as a Project alternative which was “determined to be infeasible” 9 and was not
analyzed in the Draft EIR. The applicants have also submitted “modified project concepts” for both sites, and are proceeding with annexation applications and new entitlement applications to obtain all necessary Project approvals from the City.10 While some impacts may be lessened if the Projects do not construct new sewer and water facilities (as proposed under the County applications), the Projects would result in new and potentially significant impacts on City public services and utilities which were not analyzed in the Arroyo Lago Draft EIR. In particular, the Draft EIR failed to analyze whether the Projects could be adequately served by the

7 Agenda Report, Attachment 1: Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms (emphasis added). 8 Agenda Report, Attachment 2: East Lakes Application Processing Terms (emphasis added). 9 DEIR, p. 6-25.
10 Staff Report, pp. 2-4; Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms; East Lakes Application processing terms. The Staff Report provides that “the applicants have expressed willingness to work with the City to modify the projects in conjunction with an annexation application, and after considering feedback from neighbors of the Arroyo Lago Project, and from City staff regarding both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, have submitted revised “City” versions of the two projects.”).

February 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

7357-017acp

printed on recycled paper
City’s public and utility services, including but not limited to fire, sewer, and water, in the event of annexation. East Bay Residents objects to Staff’s proposed direction to proceed with separate CEQA documents for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects.

Finally, the City is required to fully comply with CEQA review prior to approving any Project-related entitlements, including but not limited to the proposed Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (“PADA”) for Arroyo Lago or any other annexation-related approvals for the East Lakes Project. The proposed annexations would be the first obligation of City resources towards approval of the Project.11 In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, the California Supreme Court concluded that a city’s “conditional agreement to sell land for private development, coupled with financial support, public statements, and other actions by its officials committing the city to the development, was, for CEQA purposes, an approval of the project that was required… to have been preceded by preparation of an EIR.” 12 In
Save Tara, the city had expressed its favor for the project, defended it publicly, devoted substantial public resources to it, and announced a detailed agreement to go forward with the project, all without CEQA review. The Court held that this approach violated CEQA.

Similarly here, the City’s proposal to proceed with annexation of the Project sites triggers the City’s duty to fully examine the Projects’ conformance with CEQA in a single EIR prior to approval. The Staff Report provides that “If the Council wishes to proceed with the Arroyo Lago application, staff will work with the applicant to prepare a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) for the City Council to consider with the project entitlements. A PADA is a legally binding contract between a City and a developer that sets forth the terms, conditions, and obligations for a development project… Over the past several months, City staff and the applicant have discussed terms related to the processing of a City application and terms to include in the PADA.”
13 The proposed action by the City Council to
proceed with the Arroyo Lago (and East Lakes) applications is the first step towards Project approval, and requires CEQA compliance prior to approval.

We urge the City Council to direct City staff to fully comply with CEQA and prepare a single EIR analyzing the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project concurrently before the City takes any approval actions related to annexation or entitlement of the Projects.

11 Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116. 12 Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131. 13 Staff Report, p. 14 of 18.

February 18, 2025

Page 5 ends

7357-017acp

printed on recycled paper
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

Attachment
KDF:acp

ATTACHMENT A

7357-
7736-
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4- 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4- 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0- 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 5 0 6 2
k f e d e r m a n@ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper

February 4, 2025
Via Online Submission
https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment Via Email and Overnight Mail
Mayor Jack Balch
Honorable Councilmembers:

Craig Eicher, Matt Gaidos,
Jeff Nibert, Julie Testa
Pleasanton City Council
Emails: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Via Email Only
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit
Center Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 12: Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project Annexation Dear Mayor Balch, Honorable Councilmembers Ms. Denis:

On behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents”), we submit these comments regarding the City of Pleasanton (“City”) City Council (“Council”) Agenda Item 12 addressing the proposed annexation of the Arroyo Lago Residential Project SCH No. 2023050339) (“Arroyo Lago Project”) and the East County Lakes Senior Housing Project (“East Lakes Project”). The agenda item indicates that the City Council will “Receive [an] update on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton, outside the City Limits and 1) Provide direction to proceed with applications for annexation and development in Pleasanton; 2) Provide feedback on key issues relative to the two projects; 3) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project; and 4) Approve Key Terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project.”1
1 City of Pleasanton, City Council Agenda (Feb. 4, 2025).

February 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

7357-016j

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 acres of parcel APN 946-4634-2 (the same parcel proposed for 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 been in 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 proceeding with annexation applications and associated entitlement applications to obtain all necessary Project

2 Staff report, p. 2.
3 County of Alameda, Arroyo Lago Residential Project Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (May 12, 2023) (hereinafter “NOP”), available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023050339/Attachment/Blt3xk (last visited 9/6/24). 4 See NOP Exhibit 6, identifying USL Pleasanton Lakes as owner of parcels APN 946 -1350-3-10 and APN 946-4634-2.
5 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); City of Pleasonton 2/4/25 Staff Report, p.2 (describing revised East Lakes Project application filed in October 2024). 6 DEIR, p. 6-25.
7 City of Pleasanton, City Council Agenda Report Item #12 (Feb. 4, 2025), p. 2 (hereinafter “Staff Report”).

February 4, 2025

Page 3 ends

7357-016j

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.10 As 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 202412 which 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, greenhouse gas, and cumulative impacts.13 While some impacts may be

8 Staff Report, pp. 2-4; Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms; East Lakes Application processing terms. The Staff Report provides that “the applicants have expressed willingness to work with the City to modify the projects in conjunction with an annexation application, and after considering feedback from neighbors of the Arroyo Lago Project, and from City staff regarding both the Arroyo Lago and 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. 12 East Bay Residents’ DEIR comments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 13 East Bay Residents’ 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 February 4, 2025

Page 4 ends

7357-016j

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 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.

attached to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit A. East Bay Residents’ 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 to Exhibit 1 as Exhibit B.
14 Alternatively, the City may need to prepare a supplemental EIR. A Supplemental EIR is required to analyze the “changes [that] would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” Id. at § 15163(a)(2). 15 Id. at § 15088.5(a).

February 4, 2025

Page 5 ends

7357-016j

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 Pleasanton becomes the successor CEQA lead agency after Alameda County.16 In Gentry v. City of Murrieta, the lead agency changed during the CEQA environmental review process. In that case, as here, the County prepared the environmental review document.17 Then, when the City of Murieta was incorporated, it took over as lead agency.18 The City of Murieta then released the negative declaration as its own.19 Similarly here, upon annexation, the City of Pleasanton would be deemed the successor lead agency and must take over as lead agency to 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.

16 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 CA4th 1359, 1383. 17 Id. at 1398.
18 Id.
19 Id.

February 4, 2025

Page 6 ends

7357-016j

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 assume the 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 agency with 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 prezones an area, the city will act as lead agency and the LAFCO as a responsible agency for any subsequent annexation.28

20 PRC § § 21082.1.
21 City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Comm’n (1989) 209 CA3d 1169, 1174. 22 14 CCR §15051(c).
23 See Fullerton Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Board of Educ. (1982) 32 C3d 779, 795 n15. 24 Pub. Resources Code § 21065(c); see Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 C3d 263 (court held that approval of annexation was CEQA project because it involved issuance of entitlement to a person by a public agency).
25 Staff Report, Attachments 1 and 2.
26 14 CCR § 15051(b); Eller Media Co. v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 38; see also, PRC § 21067.
27 14 CCR § 15051(b)(1) (emphasis added).
28 14 CCR §15051(b)(2).

February 4, 2025

Page 7 ends

7357-016j

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 section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 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 comment were precluded.32 In Mountain Lion, the court held that the crucial stage in which the public has the opportunity to meaningfully participate and comment on an environmental document is before the 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,”33 stating:

Only at the stage when the draft EIR is circulated can the public and outside agencies have the opportunity to analyze a proposal and submit comments.

29 Staff Report, p. 14 of 18.
30 Planning & Conservation League v. Dep’t of Water Res. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 906-07 (Where wrong public agency assumes role of lead agency, the entire CEQA process is 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.

February 4, 2025

Page 8 ends

7357-016j

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 proposed for 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 piecemealed its analysis of the Projects by omitting the East Lakes Project from the DEIR. The Applicants’ concurrent proposals for annexation and City approval of both Projects further demonstrates their interrelationship as part of a single development proposal which must be analyzed in 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 adequately analyze or mitigate. These impacts must be analyzed and mitigated in a revised DEIR before the Projects can proceed with the annexation City entitlement processes.

34 Mountain Lion Coal. v. Fish & Game Com., 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043, 1052. (EID is essentially the same as an EIR since the Dept. of Fish and Game had a certified environmental program). 35 Laurel Heights Impr. Assn. v. Reg. of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112. 1130.

February 4, 2025

Page 9 ends

7357-016j

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.36 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.”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 processed under separate applications, 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 piecemealed developments overturned by the court in Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v.

South Valley Area Planning Commission.40 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.41 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

36 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal. 3d at 396; See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284; See also Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(d). 37 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(a).
38 Id.; 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. 39 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378.
40 (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336.
41 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336.

February 4, 2025

Page 10 ends

7357-016j

the project as a whole.42 The 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 go around the rules by developing in a piecemeal fashion 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 analyzed together in a single EIR 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.

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.”46 As a result, 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 City must prepare a new or revised DEIR to address these impacts.

42 Id.
43 Arviv, 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.]
44 Id. at 1342.
45 Id at 1340.
46 DEIR, p. 6-25.

February 4, 2025

Page 11 ends

7357-016j

The City of Pleasanton provided comments on 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 served by existing water supply. Rather, evidence in 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-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.48 However, 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.49

47 Email from Melinda Denis
Planning and Permit Center Manager, Deputy Director of Community Development, City of Pleasanton to Aubrey Rose, Development Planning Division Alameda County Planning Department re: PLN2022-00193 – Arroyo Largo Residential Project: A proposal to subdivide an existing approximately 26.6-acre site, known as Parcel A of Parcel Map No. 11230, into a total of 204 parcels consisting of 20 commonly owned parcels and 194 individually owned parcels for the construction of 194-unit single-family residential units. (Feb. 10, 2023). 48 Exhibit E – Letter from California Water Service to Alameda County re Will Serve Tract or Parcel Map No: PM 11230 Owner: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P. (11/11/2022). 49 Exhibit F, Letter from California Water Service to Alameda County re Case No.: PLN2022-00193 (10/12/2023)
February 4, 2025

Page 12 ends

7357-016j

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 be quantified and discussed in a single Water Supply Assessment as part of the 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 projected air 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 significance of a project’s air quality impacts under CEQA.52 The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it exceeds the BAAQMD construction and operational significance thresholds,53 but 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 adequately analyze emissions associated with material hauling and associated truck trips. Finally, SWAPE explained that the DEIR relied on modeling based on 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.
52 Bay 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-guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2- pdf.pdf?rev=a976830cce0c4a6bb624b020f72d25b3&sc_lang=en. 53 DEIR, p. 3.2-36; 3.2-38.
54 DEIR, p. 3.2-43.
55 SWAPE Comments, pp. 2-13.

February 4, 2025

Page 13 ends

7357-016j

omissions resulted in substantial underestimation of the Arroyo Lago Project’s air emissions. When properly calculated, SWAPE found that the Project’s construction and operational air pollutant impacts would be significant and remain unmitigated.

The County has not responded to public comments on 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.56 A revised EIR must be circulated to provide an accurate construction-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 associated with 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 Code CA0110008_004_004.57

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.”58 The DEIR failed 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 began testing its water for PFAS including, but not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”).59 During this testing, the City discovered

56 SWAPE Comments, p. 4; Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 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.App.4th 949, 960; CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th 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”).
57 California Water Boards, California PFAS Investigation Site Map, 58 DEIR, Appendix A: EIR Noticing and Public Involvement, pdf p. 59 of 208. 59 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports_pdf/1687827492.pdf.

February 4, 2025

Page 14 ends

7357-016j

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 e 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.
61 City 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.cityofpleasantonca.gov/news/pleasanton-city-council-approves-two-new-water-wellsto- meet-long-term-drinking-water-needs/.
62 Staff Report, p. 7 of 18.

February 4, 2025

Page 15 ends

7357-016j

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.

63 DEIR, p. ES-18 -19; ES-26.
64 SWAPE Comments, p. 10.
65 PRC §§§ 21002, 21081(a) 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. 66 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 67 SWAPE Comments, pp. 11-12.

February 4, 2025

Page 16 ends

7357-016j

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:ljl

EXHIBIT 1

7357-013acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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

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

printed on recycled paper

November 8, 2024

Via Email and Overnight Mail

Aubrey Rose, Planner III
Alameda County Planning
Department
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Email: [email protected]

Albert Lopez, Director
Planning Department
Alameda County
224 W. Winton Avenue, Rm 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
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 fo r 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 prop oses 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 400,000 gallon capacity, a 2.5 acre recycled water storage facility with a 900,000 gallon capacity, approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields, and two bioretention areas with treatment areas sized at approximately 0.9-acre and 0.03-acre, respectively. Proposed Project entitlements November 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
include approval of a site development permit and building permits and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

The Arroyo Lago Project site consis ts 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),
1 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 Projec t 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, bocce ball court, pool and pool house) on a 6.5-acre portion of the site.7 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

1 County of Alameda, Arroyo Lago Residential Project Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (May 12, 2023) (hereinafter “NOP”), available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023050339/Attachment/Blt3xk (last visited 9/6/24). 2 See 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). 5 USL 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.

November 8, 2024

Page 3 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 8 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 v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

November 8, 2024

Page 4 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

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.

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 assess the 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; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 406.

November 8, 2024

Page 5 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.16 The 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.”
20 “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

14 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 15 Citizens 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.App.4th at 1354. 17 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2).
18 Id., subd. (b)(2)(A)-(B).
19 Berkeley 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, 391 409, fn. 12. 20 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946.
21 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 405.

November 8, 2024

Page 6 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.

22 Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 391.
23 CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15090, 15091.
24 Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1.
25 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088.5.
26 Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey City Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 122 CalApp3d 813, 822. 27 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, November 8, 2024

Page 7 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 th e 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

28 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.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.App.4th 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. 30Id.
31 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 32 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1345. 33 Bozung 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.”).
34 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal. 3d at 396; See Bozung 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).

November 8, 2024

Page 8 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 Projec t 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).
41,42 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.43

36 Id.; 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.
38 DEIR, 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). 41 USL 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). 42 DEIR, 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).

November 8, 2024

Page 9 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 Arviv 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

44 DEIR, 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.
48 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. 49 Id.

November 8, 2024

Page 10 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 mi nimus, 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

50 Arviv, 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.
53 Id. at 1346.
54 Id.

November 8, 2024

Page 11 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.

55 See NOP, Exhibit 6, Proposed Offsite Improvements.

November 8, 2024

Page 12 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper

DEIR, Exhibit 2-6a.

The SB 330 Application filed for the Senior East County Lakes Project includes the same APN suggesting an overlap of the Project’s offsite improvements with the Senior East County Lakes Project components.

November 8, 2024

Page 13 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.
57 National 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).
59 Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Impact on the Quality of Life When Living Close to a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant, available at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2016/8467023 (visited 9/10/24).

November 8, 2024

Page 14 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 assess the significance of a project’s impacts.64 Use of the proper baseline is critical to a meaningful assessment of a project’s

60 Bay 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.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-and-enforcement/incident- reports/2023/incidentreport_veolia_richmondwwtp_h2sodors_update_120723- pdf.pdf?rev=6d4d944cd4ee44f6a91a3a59e152c9a0.
61 ECAP, 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).
63 Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 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).

November 8, 2024

Page 15 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 D EIR’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.

65 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Ca.4th 310, 320.
66 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th at 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 Cal.4th 412, 435.
67 CEQA Guidelines §15384.
68 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2(c).
69 Toncheva Comments, p. 6.
70 Toncheva Comments, p. 6.

November 8, 2024

Page 16 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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."73

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

71 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 72 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
73 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 74 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
75 CEQA Appendix G.
76 Bay 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-guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2- pdf.pdf?rev=a976830cce0c4a6bb624b020f72d25b3&sc_lang=en.

November 8, 2024

Page 17 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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

77 DEIR, p. 3.2-36; 3.2-38.
78 DEIR, p. 3.2-43.
79 SWAPE Comments, pp. 2-13.
80 SWAPE Comments, p. 4; Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 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.App.4th 949, 960; CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 327 (impact is significant because exceeds “established significance threshold for NOx … constitute[ing] subs tantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”).
81 DEIR, p. I-14.
82 SWAPE Comments p. 2.
83 SWAPE Comments p. 2.

November 8, 2024

Page 18 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.86 The 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.”88 The 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 84 SWAPE Comments, p. 4.
85 Id. at 3.
86 Id.
87 Id.
88 DEIR, p. 3.2-46.
89 Id.
90 DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 78. 91 Id. at 117.
92 SWAPE Comments, p. 5.
93 SWAPE Comments, p. 5.

November 8, 2024

Page 19 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.”
95 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.
95 DEIR, p. 3.2-55.
96 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
97 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
98 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
99 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.

November 8, 2024

Page 20 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.”101 The 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 (H₂S), 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

100 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.
101 DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 93. 102 DEIR, p. 3.2-25.
103 SWAPE Comments, p. 7.

November 8, 2024

Page 21 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 CA0110008_004_004.104

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”).
106 During 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.

104 California Water Boards, California PFAS Investigation Site Map, 105 DEIR, Appendix A: EIR Noticing and Public Involvement, pdf p. 59 of 208. 106 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports_pdf/1687827492.pdf. 107 Id.

November 8, 2024

Page 22 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
PFAS contamination that would cost-effectively deliver to City residents high- quality, reliable drinking water needs each year.”108

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.
109 The 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.”111

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

108 City 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.cityofpleasantonca.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); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 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. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 112 DEIR, p. ES-18 -19; ES-26.

November 8, 2024

Page 23 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 114 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. 115 SWAPE
provides a list of potential GHG mitigation measures that may apply to the Project.116 The 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.”
120 But 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

113 SWAPE Comments, p. 10.
114 PRC §§§ 21002, 21081(a) 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. 115 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 116 SWAPE Comments, pp. 11-12.
117 SWAPE Comments, p. 12.
118 DEIR, p. ES-26.
119 SWAPE Comments, p. 12.
120 DEIR, p. 3.7-27.

November 8, 2024

Page 24 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.” 123 The
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.
124 These levels exceed normally acceptable
community noise exposure threshold of 60 dBA for single family residences, per

121 DEIR, p. 3.16-20.
122 Id. at § 15064(a)(2).
123 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15370.
124 DEIR, p. 3.12-21, Table 3.12-8
November 8, 2024

Page 25 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
California Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.125 Ms.

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.126 Ms. 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.128 Ms. 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.”129 The 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.” 130 The 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.131 The 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.

125 https://www.lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf 126 Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
127 Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
128 Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
129 Toncheva Comments, p. 3.
130 DEIR, pg. 3.12-1.
131 DEIR, pg. 3.12-10.

November 8, 2024

Page 26 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 132 Ms. 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.134 Ms. 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 projects will 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. 137 The projects also

132 Toncheva Comments, p. 5.
133 Id.
134 DEIR, p. 3.12-19.
135 Toncheva Comments, p. 4.
136 DEIR, p. 3.1-16.
137 DEIR, Table 3-1: Cumulative Projects.

November 8, 2024

Page 27 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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 reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 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 Code require 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 increase of 10 percent 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.
139 At 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 exceed the 10 percent threshold for increasing water connections, and when considered together (763 units), the projects clearly exceed thresholds requiring a WSA. Under CEQA and the Water

138 NOP, p. 11.
139 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15155(a); Water Code § 10910.

November 8, 2024

Page 28 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 140 However, Cal
Water retracted the will-serve letter in October 2023, explaining:

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.
142 The 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 Service to Alameda County re Will Serve Tract or Parcel Map No: PM 11230 Owner: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P. (11/11/2022). 141 Exhibit F, Letter from California Water Service to Alameda County re Case No.: PLN2022-00193 (10/12/2023)
142 Id.
143 See Exhibit G, Geotracker, USL Pleasonton Lakes, available at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000009398 (visited 9/10/24). 144 Id.

November 8, 2024

Page 29 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 146 But,
the DEIR provides that import and export of grading material would be limited to an off-site location.147 ACDEH 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.
149 Under 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.
146 DEIR, Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information, p. 117. 147 Id.
148
149 Endangered Habitats League, 131 Cal.App.4th at 783–784 (Project’s inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA). 150 Id. 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).

November 8, 2024

Page 30 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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. 151 Sensitive
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 sewer treatment plant constitutes an air pollution point source and would result in potentially significant air, odor, and noise impact 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.154 Sensitive 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 affected by the air, odor, and noise emissions from the sewer treatment 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”).
152 Id. at p. T-4
153 DEIR, p. 2-29.
154 DEIR, p. 3.8-20.
155 ECAP, p. 71.
156 ECAP, p. 70.

November 8, 2024

Page 31 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.

157 DEIR, p. 3.12-19.

November 8, 2024

Page 32 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper

VIII. THE COUNTY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS

Project approval requires approval of a site development permit and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

The Project requires a Site Development permit. The planning director or his or her designated representative shall receive and decide applications for site development review. No public hearing is required, but the planning director may give such notice as he deems appropriate. Should the planning director or other public body hold a public hearing on a site development review 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 necessary to determine whether or not the proposed use or structure conforms or may be conditioned to conform fully to the regulations for the district as herein set forth. The planning director may request reports and recommendations from the county surveyor, building official and health officer,

November 8, 2024

Page 33 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
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.161 The 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.163 The 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.

November 8, 2024

Page 34 ends

7357-013acp

printed on recycled paper
the Project’s nonconformance with the ECAP precludes the County from making the necessary findings that the Project conforms with local law and precludes the County from making the necessary findings to approve the tentative map. 164

IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, 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.

These revisions will necessarily require 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.

S i n c e r e l y ,

Kelilah D. Federman

Attachments
KDF:acp

164 Alameda County Municipal Code § 16.08.080; 16.08.090.

EXHIBIT A

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
November 7, 2024
Kelilah Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Co mments 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 (“CalEEMod”) Version 2022.1 (p. 3.2-1). 1 CalEEMod 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 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.

2 Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 After entering all relevant data into the model, CalEEMod calculates the emissions from both construction and operational phases, producing “output files.” These files outline the parameters used in the emissions calculations and highlight any modifications made to the default values, along with 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 prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction of the Project will have on local and regional air 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).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 77):

2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's -guide, p. 13, 14.

3 The CalEEMod 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 DEIR states:
“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 DEIR also provides the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (p. 3.2-24, Table 3.2-4).

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 CalEEMod outputs as the source of these changes, which does not qualify as “substantial evidence” required under CEQA.
4 Until a proper source is provided, such as information

3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's -guide, p. 13, 14.
4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's -guide, p.

14. 4

from the Project Applicant, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 30 months.5 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).
6 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):

5 See Attachment A for proportionately altered construction schedule. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.

32. 5

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.7 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 substantiate the model’s omission of material import and export. As discussed by the Bay Area 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.”8 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 CalEEMod output 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).

7 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-so urce/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip- rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 8 “BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, 2022, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-r esearch/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines- chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_final-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5-4. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.

34. 6

As a result, the model includes the following off-road equipment table (Appendix B, pp. 78, 79):

The justification provided for these changes, found in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, states:
“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” (Appendix B, pp. 96).

The DEIR provides 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):

7 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 CEQA requirements.10 We are consequently unable to verify these changes until the DEIR provides specific, substantiated information regarding construction equipment values and fuel types. While these changes remain unsubstantiated, we recommend that the values are left as default.

10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's -guide, p.

14. 8

CalEEMod uses the off-road equipment unit amounts, horsepower, and hours of use per day values to calculate the emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.11 The 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 DEIR demonstrates 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).

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 have been phased in over time. Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and

11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 36.

9 therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment (see excerpt below):12

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 EIR is 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 CO 2e/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.

10 The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable GHG impact, 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-1 and GHG-2; however, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, project impacts would be significant” (p. 3.7-28).

The DEIR claims that the Project aligns with BAAQMD requirements and design elements. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
An impact can therefore only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation measures are evaluated. While the DEIR incorporates MM GHG-1, GHG-2, and MM TRANS-2a and TRANS-2b, there are additional measures that the DEIR fails to consider (p. 3.7-26, 3.7-27). To reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.”

11 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA 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 access to 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,
12 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:
13 • 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 Climate Impacts” BAAQMD, April 2023, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-r esearch/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines- chapter-8-mitigation_final-pdf.pdf?rev=5a4aa8d31c394498b8b4de4e9eb46edc&sc_lang=en, p. 8-5 – 7. 14 “2022 Scoping Plan For Achieving Carbon Neutrality” CARB, November 2022, available at :
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf, Appendix D, p. 23, Table

3. 13

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
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021

Professional History:

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

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

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

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

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

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations:

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

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

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

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

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

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International

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

Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Grants Awarded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

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

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

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

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

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

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17 th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

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

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

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

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009

EXHIBIT B

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, recycled water facility, agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields, and two 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 N oise 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 techni cal 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.

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Page 2 ends

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

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

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 3 0 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.

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

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. Th is is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.

1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Page 3 ends

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 C alifornia 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 -8]. These levels exceed normally acceptable community noise exposure threshold of 60 dBA for single family residences, per Calif ornia Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.
2 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, a s 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.

2 https://www.lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Page 4 ends

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 Levels for Grading and Site Preparation Equipment
Lmax at
50 ft.
(dBA)
Usage
(%)
Distance
(feet)
Shielding
(dB) Ground
Leq at
Residence
(dBA)
Over
Ambient
(dBA)1
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

PARCEL B
(future
development)

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Page 5 ends

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].

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, p g. 3.12-18]. 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.

Baseline Noise 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 does not provide a figure showing the measurements (Appendix H includes a sketch of ST- 1). The DIER states 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 Busch Road [DEIR, pg. 3.12-9]. The report does not discuss how the measurement locations relate to sensitive receivers adjacent to the site. As shown in Figure 1, the residences along Chatham Place are 835 feet from Busch Road. 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).

WILSON IHRIG
Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Review and Comment on Noise Report

Page 6 ends

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.

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

PROJECT

SITE RESIDENCES
835 ft.

ST-1
LT-1 / ST-3
FIRE DEPT.

PARCEL B
(future
development)
ST-2

ANI TONCHE
VA
Senior Consu
ltant

Sinc
e joining the firm in 2011, Ani has conducted analyses for transit system
s, vibration sensitive research facilities, public infrastructure, construct
ion, and other environmental noise. She has contributed to literature r
eviews, including research on current practices of historical preservat
ion. 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.

Massachu
setts 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, I-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, CA Project 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, CA Prepared preliminary basis of 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 Tonchev
a – 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, NJ Assisted 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.

NY MTA 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.

NY MTA 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
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 1 of 8 HOUSING CRISIS ACT of 2019 – SB 330

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM

PURPOSE
This form serves as the preliminary application for
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
permit processing fee to the agency from which
approval for the project is being sought.

After submitting this Preliminary Application to the
local agency, an applicant has 180 days to submit a
full application or the Preliminary Application will
expire.

Submittal Date Stamp*1,2:
*1Submittal of all the information listed and
payment of the permit processing fee freezes
fees and development standards as of this date,
unless exceptions per Government Code §
65889.5(o) are triggered.
*2Note: Record keeping pertaining to which
standards and fees apply at date of submittal is
imperative, as penalties may apply for
imposing incorrect standards
Notes:

1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Coastal Act standards apply.

2. After submittal of all of the information required, if the development proponent revises the project to change the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 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 2 of 8

SITE INFORMATION

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

Street Address ___________________________________Unit/Space Number Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Attached? YES NO Assessor Parcel Number(s) _____________________________________________________

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.

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.

Busch Road, Unincorporated Alameda County
✔
See attached preliminary title report with legal description 946-4634-2
The 61.6 AC site is vacant and has no existing physical improvements ✔
✔
See attached cover letter and site plan.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 3 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
Managers Unit(s) – Market Rate
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Total No. of Units
Total No. of Affordable Units
Total No. of Density Bonus Units
Other notes on units:

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)
Square Footage of
Construction

7. PARKING - The proposed number of 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:
455
72 569
114
N/A
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. 1,028,620 1028620
1,028,620 1,028,620
1,822 total parking spaces
✔
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 4 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:

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

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 ܆NO ܆
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 ܆
✔
The Project will require a parcel map to subdivide a portion of the Project that will include the 57 single-family residenc
es and duet homes.
✔
0 0 0
0 0 0
✔
✔
✔
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 5 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 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2? YES ܆NO ܆
vi. 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?
YES ܆NO ܆
If “YES” to any, please describe:
b. Does the project site contain historic and/or cultural resources? YES ܆NO ܆
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 6 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:
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 ܆NO ܆
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.

YES ܆NO ܆
c. A tsunami run-up zone. YES ܆NO ܆
d. Use of the site for public access to or along the coast. YES ܆NO ܆

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
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Are you in escrow to purchase the property? YES ܆NO ܆ ✔
See, please see attached Site Plan for description and location of public easements. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bridget Metz
USL Pleasanton Lakes. L.P.
101 California Street 800
San Francisco CA 94111
925.364.0898 [email protected]
✔
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 7 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
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Optional: Other (Specify Architect, Engineer, CEQA Consultant, etc.) Name
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Primary Contact for Project: ܆Owner ܆Applicant ܆Agent/Representative ܆Other ✔
Kevin Ashe
Holland & Knight
4675 MacArthur Court 900
Newport Beach CA 92660
415.743.6972 [email protected]
Architect
Robert Lee
WHA Architects
5000 Executive Parkway 375
San Ramon CA 94582
925.463.1700 [email protected]
✔
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 8 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 f iled 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. Provide Copy of the Grant Deed if the ownership of the property does 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 hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the herein previously described property located in _______________________________ 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. I hereby consent to the filing of this Preliminary Application on my property for processing by the Department of ____________________________ for the sole purpose of vesting the proposed housing project subject to the Planning and Zoning ordinances, policies, and standards adopted 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 housing development project is revised such that the number of residential units 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 signature below, I certify that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

Signature Signature
Printed Name Printed Name
Date Date
See attached ownership disclosure form See attached ownership disclosure form

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”) 330 to develop a 61.6-acre southwestern portion of the Property with qualified senior housing (age restricted for 55 years and older) of the following product types: 357 single-family residences and duet homes and 212 multifamily independent and/or assisted living units (the “Project”).1
I. Project Description
As explained above, Applicant is proposing to develop a 61.6 -acre southwestern portion of the Property2 into a senior housing development project consisting of 357 single-family r esidences and duet homes and 212 multifamily senior independent and/or assisted living units. The single- family and duet homes will re quire a parcel map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act to independently subdivide, and the 212 multifamily senior independent and/or assisted living units will be located in a 208,000 sq. ft. apartment building to the north-central portion of the Property.

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, 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5.
2 The eastern portions of the Property are not proposed for development at this time.

Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

#503315009_v1
and an internal circulation system to accommodate bike and vehicular travel as well as ingress and egress to the Property. The Project will include a 6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse amenity space for residents to congregate and dine, as well as a n 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 . The senior residential housing architecture style consists of contemporary and traditional character. The higher density independent/assisted living 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 aesthetic ally appealing and charming community where senior residents can enjoy all the amenities and social value the Project has to offer.

II. SB 330 Preliminary Application
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or “SB 330,” created important new protections for housing developments:
• Preliminary 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 pr oject shall be deemed to have submitted a qualifying preliminary application upon providing the local agency with all information specified in Gov. Code § 65941.1(a).
• Vested Rights - With the submission of the preliminary application, the Project will be deemed complete.4 As such, the Project will have vested rights to develop in 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 180 days of the preliminary application, the County must provide Applicant 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 330 limits the total number of hearings that can be held on t he Modified Project to five (5). Gov. Code § 65905.5(b) defines a “hearing” to include “any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the local agency with respect to the housing development project, ” whether by the legislative body of the local agency, the planning agency or any other agency thereof.

Applicant hereby submits an SB 330 preliminary application using the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) prescribed form, which is attached hereto . 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
5 Gov. Code § 65943.

Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

#503315009_v1
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.” 7 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 One such finding 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 deemed complete, 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 i t is a development consisting of residential and residential amenities uses with at least two thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.”9 Moreover, the Project has committed to providing 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 vested right to develop the Project in accordance with the applicable policies, ordinances, and standards in effect when the preliminary application is submitted.10 HCD has confirmed on multiple occasions that such vested rights include a right to proceed under the 6 Gov. Code § 65941.1(d)(1).
7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(a).
8 For purposes of the HAA, housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households is defined as having 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).
10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1).

Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Page 4 ends

#503315009_v1
Housing Element compliance status in effect at the time of preliminary application submittal.11 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 was also recently confirmed in the first builder’s remedy trial court decision in Los Angeles Superior Court, in the case of California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge et. al.13
Here, on January 4, 2024, HCD found that the County’s December 21, 2023 draft housing element did not substantially comply with state housing element law.14 Applicant understands that the County recently submitted a revised draft of its Housing Element to HCD on May 10, 2024. As of today’s date, HCD has not certified the County’s Housing Element as being in substantial compliance with state housing element law. Per the County’s website, 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 hearings for adoption.”15 If HCD does not certify the draft Housing Element, CDA staff and consultant team will revise the second draft of the Housing Element to address HCD's comments as needed; give public notice of second comment period on Housing Element; and submit third Housing Element draft to HCD for review.16
Thus, as of today’s date, the County has not adopted a Housing Element that substantially complies with state housing element law. Accordingly, the Project is entitled to (and has vested) to processing under the HAA’s Builder’s Remedy.

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 development standards that physically preclude development of the project at the density sought. 11 See HCD, 3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance (Oct. 5, 2022), at 2, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica-TA-100522.pdf 12 3030 Nebraska Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance, at 2. 13 Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614, Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief (Mar. 4, 2024).
14 https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/housing-
element/documents/AlamedaCountyInitialDraftHousingElementLetter1_4_2024.pdf 15Alameda County Housing Element Update 2023-203, (accessed on June 3, 2024), available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/housing-element/housing-element.htm 16 Id.
17 § 65913.16(j)(1)(C).

Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

#503315009_v1
However, because the 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 reserves the right to request such a density bonus, incentives, or waivers to the extent such becomes necessary during 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 scope of that discretion.”18 This legal principle was affirmed in Tiburon Open Space Committee 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 express or implied limitations provided by other laws.”19 Applicant welcomes the opportunity to discuss (or present) potential CEQA pathways for the County’s consideration. Regardless of the scope of CEQA review for this Project, the County should ensure that environmental review is confined to those issues over which it possesses discretionary authority – specifically, potential public health and safety impacts.20 VII. Conclusion
Applicant looks forward to collaborating with County Planning staff to ensure this much-needed housing Project comes to fruition. Should any questions arise as the process proceeds, please do hesitate to reach out to discuss this project further.
18 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2023) § 12.8 19 See, Tiburon, 78 Cal.App.5th at 732-33 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see also San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924, 938 (“Where an agency has no authority to modify a project based on the analysis contained in the EIR, there is no basis for requiring the agency to prepare the EIR.”).
20 HAA, subdivision (d)(5) provides that local agencies ca nnot deny or render infeasible affordable housing development projects unless they make one of five enumerated findings, one of which is that “housing development … would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mi tigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(2).) Alameda County Planning Department
June 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

#503315009_v1
Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Kevin J. Ashe
Tamsen Plume

EXHIBIT E

calwater.com
November 11, 2022

Alameda County Community Development Agency
Mr. Rodrigo Orduña
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. Orduña,

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 em ergency 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 CPUC including, 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 f acilities, 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

EXHIBIT F

calwater.com
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 4th referral 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.

Cal Water is currently working with USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P., to develop a Letter of Agreement (LOA) to provide water service to the new development. This LOA has not been finalized as of 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.

Additionally, the statements in the letter regarding the pending process and 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 USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P. to finalize and validate the statements and the water supply capability upon agreement and execution of 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

Sincerely,

John Freeman
Livermore District Manager

Cc: USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P. ([email protected]) Steve Reilly ([email protected])
Shilen Patel, Chief Corporate Development Officer
Scott Wagner, Director of Water Resources
Patrick Kalvass, Distribution Engineering Manager
Robert Seeley, Regional Community Affairs Specialist

2 EXHIBIT G

CASE SUMMARY

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

UNKNOWN

CREATED BY

UNKNOWN
III. SITE LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

USL PLEASANTON LAKES - LONG-TERM MONITORING

FACILITY ID

FACILITY ADDRESS
3000 BUSCH RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566

ALAMEDA COUNTY

ORIENTATION OF SITE TO STREET

CROSS STREET
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
1/1/1965

HOW DISCOVERED

DESCRIPTION

DATE STOPPED

STOP METHOD

DESCRIPTION

VII. SOURCE/CAUSE

SOURCE OF DISCHARGE
Other

CAUSE OF DISCHARGE
Other

DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION

VIII. CASE TYPE

CASE TYPE
Soil
Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water)
IX. REMEDIAL ACTION

Back to Top Conditions of Use

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 RO0002941 and RO002952. 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. RO0003228 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 facility under VRAP cases RO0002941 and RO002952. The majority of these three parcels are contained within Alameda County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 946�-1250�-6�-4 and 946�-1350�-3�]-2, while the northern extent of Parcel E is also within Alameda County APNs 946�-1250�-6�-5 and 946�-1350�-3�-13 and the northern extent of Parcel F is also within Alameda County APN 946�-1250�-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
RO0003228

REGIONAL BOARD CASE NUMBER

LOCAL AGENCY

CONTACT NAME

DILAN ROE

INITIALS
DR
ORGANIZATION_NAME

ALAMEDA COUNTY LOP

EMAIL ADDRESS
[email protected]

ADDRESS
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway
ALAMEDA, CA 94502

CONTACT DESCRIPTION

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

REGIONAL BOARD

CONTACT NAME
Cherie McCaulou

INITIALS
CCM
ORGANIZATION_NAME
SAN FRANCISCO BAY RWQCB (REGION 2)

EMAIL ADDRESS
[email protected]

ADDRESS
1515 CLAY STREET, SUITE 1400
OAKLAND, CA 94612

CONTACT DESCRIPTION

PHONE TYPE PHONE NUMBER EXTENSION
Office (510)-622-2342
Submitted On:

Mar 18, 2025, 11:10AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: LOU
Last Name: ASTBURY
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 07:00 AM
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 18
Comments Dear Pleasanton City Council,
I am concerned about the cost and effect of an El Charro Rd. extension. It is an expensive project and the developer should pay or finance the project at the front end. If the City pays or finances this, despite budgetary concerns, based on a future promise to pay for it, what happens if the developer becomes insolvent at a future date? Pleasanton should in no way pay for the extension.

Also I am very concerned about the related impact of cut-through traffic going through the heart of Pleasanton via a Charro Rd extension.

In addition I am also concerned about a water treatment plant situated next to the gravel pit water reserve. This is a very dense project with a lot of waste water and potential run-off. What about a open space/nature conservation area next to the gravel pits. Less pollution of our water and also as a safety barrier consideration as the lakes will an "attractive nuisance" to children living in the project.

What about increasing the senior housing component for less traffic? Thanks for your service in dealing with this and the budget crisis.

Submitted On:

Mar 15, 2025, 06:58PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Rick
Last Name: Schussel
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 05:00 PM
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 13
Comments I respectfully ask the city to reinstate the Adult Bocce League that was abruptly canceled starting this Spring. This sport has been offered for years and is a special activity. It is a low impact sport, especially enjoyed by seniors. Our Bocce league has been well attended and we ask the council to reinstate the league. Thank you Submitted On:

Mar 13, 2025, 01:54PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Todd
Last Name: Nelson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 07:00 PM
Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 8
Comments 1. Please provide documentation supporting the necessity for a full new Master Plan rather than a minor update.

The City of Livermore recently did a minor update on its 2018 Master Plan. Staff verbally told BPTC that we wanted to do a minor update but were forced to do a full one. What authority made this demand? What is it about Pleasanton's 2018 plan that made this a requirement but not Livermore's 2018 plan? And whatever difference there was, does our new RFP highlight this so that our next revision can be minor?

2. Please provide the comparison analysis that allowed Hexagon to win this bid.

Fehr & Peers would seem to have an advantage since they wrote our previous plan. I believe that Fehr & Peers maintains our TDM and Exhibit A indicates that Hexagon will make use of a TDM; will Hexagon recreate one or will Fehr & Peers give Hexagon access? If the latter, will financial considerations be expected? A cursory review of Hexagon's website suggests they are primarily a Traffic consultant, not a Bike/Ped consultant. The example bike/ped projects have no links; has Staff reviewed their Master Plan examples? The projects I could find were only minor corridor projects. Hexagon worked for the City in 2013 on the Downtown Parking Study but I've never heard them mentioned with respect to bike/ped work.

3. Item 10 of the Agreement requires that the consultant cannot sublet or transfer anything without written consent of the City. Please provide whatever written agreement already exists for Hexagon to work with Toole Design.

Toole Design is referenced in Exhibit A, Task #3 but nowhere else in this agenda item. Toole Design's involvement was verbally implied to BPTC by Staff. What role does Toole Design have in this project and how will they be compensated?

4. The ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal under "Optimizing our Organization", specifically, "...community engagement... to improve information sharing..." is relevant here. Please consider revoking "Action Minutes".

The entirety of the recent meeting minutes for BPTC on this topic are:

Item 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update - Request for Proposal review
Recommendation: Informational Only
Associate Traffic Engineer Matt Nelson present the item.

Chair Deckert opened public comment.

The following individuals provided comments: Members of the committee.

Chair Deckert closed public comment.

5. Please add some transparency and accountability measures for City Staff.

I notice that the ONE Strategic Plan has no goals related to the Integrity Value: We value INTEGRITY by fostering transparency and being trusted to do what is right and accountable for our actions.

Exhibit A, Task #2 (assigned to the consultant): Programs implemented since BPMP, 2018 was adopted.

Please make this document publicly available to residents, BPTC, and City Council for review.

This sort of compilation was spelled out in the 2018 Master Plan as an annual expectation of Staff but was never performed. Exhibit A assigns this task to the consultant to perform via Google.

Measure B/BB funds from ACTC for FY2024-2025 are projected for Pleasanton for Bike/Ped to be: $515,104.30
This should be sufficient for the BPMP. The remaining funds have certain eligibility requirements such as inclusion in a written plan, community input, and City Council approval. Between ACTC FY2018- 2019 and FY2023-2024, Pleasanton's Measure B/BB expenditures on "various" totaled: $221,961 (close to 20% of total). None of these met those eligibility requirements. Staff offered no transparency - they are clearly ineligible - and suffered no accountability. I'm left to believe that no one from the community suggested those projects, no one provided oversight, and City Council was not made aware - even after the fact. This is relevant to Task #2 because certain projects listed in the 2018 BPMP were not implemented while other projects were. It is my belief that the BPMP is the official policy document concerning such projects and Staff should have overwhelming reasons for ignoring them in favor of other projects - and both residents and City Council should approve of them.

6. Please fix a few minor items in Exhibit A.
- Task #3 adds "...team will also review adjacent agencies’ bicycle and pedestrian plans..." which seems redundant to Hexagon's second bullet point in Task 2.
- Also, please add the Alameda Countywide Bikeways Network (something City staff contributed to without ever sharing to BPTC - see also request #5).
- Task 3.2 makes reference to "task 2.2" but there is no such thing in this document. Should we assume this is "task 3.1"?
- Task #4, (BPTC) Meetings, includes typos. "up to four (4)" should be "at least four (4)" based on the rest of the paragraph. The next sentence reads, "Four Three of the meetings are..." which I assume should be "Three". The suggestion that holding BPTC "...concurrently with the community meetings..." seems disingenuous; community meetings where BPTC is present are not the same as BPTC meetings. If you value the BPTC's input, there should be a review meeting after the completion of each task (Task 2, Task 3.1, Task

3.2, Task 3.3, Task 3.4, Task 5, and at least one meeting to review community outreach prior to final prioritization of projects).

From: James Lloyd
To: Jack Balch; Craig Eicher; Matt Gaidos; Jeff Nibert; Julie Testa Cc: Pleasanton City Clerk; Ellen Clark; Gerry Beaudin; Dan Sodergren Subject: Public comment re agenda item 6 (ADU ordinance) for 3/18/25 Council meeting Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:52:13 AM
Attachments: Pleasanton ADU Ordinance Letter - CC - 18 Mar 2025.pdf Dear Pleasanton City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment concerning item 6 on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for March 18, 2025, an amendment to the City’s regulations for ADUs and JADUs.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/

Mar 18, 2025

City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566

By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Re: Proposed amendments to the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations

Dear Pleasanton City Council,

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment concerning item 6 on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for March 18, 2025, an amendment to the City’s regulations for ADUs and JADUs. This proposed ordinance fails to comply with state law in several ways, and the City should address these problems before approving the ordinance.

Background

The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].)

360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
[email protected]

In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).)

State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”

Impermissible Underlying Standards

City code section 18.106.020(F) applies underlying planned unit development and specific plan standards to ADUs that exceed 800 square feet, four foot side and rear setbacks, and 16-20 feet in height. Similarly, code section 18.106.045(D) applies underlying zoning standards to ADUs that exceed 800 square feet, four foot side and rear setbacks, and 16-20 feet in height. And code section 18.106.060(H) applies all other underlying residential zoning standards to ADUs.

However, as discussed supra, Government Code section 66323 mandates that the City approve a specific class of ADUs subject only to specified height and setback requirements, notwithstanding any local code requirements to the contrary. This means, for example, that the City cannot impose landscaping regulations, open space requirements, ﬂoor area ratio
regulations, parking requirements, front setbacks, etc. on ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323.

While the carveouts contained in code sections 18.106.020(F) and 18.106.045(D) [regarding certain 800 square foot ADUs] would satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(2), the City may not impose any underlying zoning, including but not limited to planned unit development and specific plan standards, on ADUs that meet the definitions contained in section 66323, subdivisions (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4). And of course code section 18.106.060(H)’s general imposition of underlying zoning standards violates Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b): “(b) A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”

Similarly, code section 18.106.050(C) imposes underlying zoning requirements on the conversion of existing space within multifamily developments, except as modified by that chapter. As discussed, no such zoning requirements can be imposed on ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(3).

2 of 7

The City should amend its code so that no underlying zoning standards are applied to ADUs eligible for the protections of Government Code section 66323.

For more information on the City’s duty regarding Government Code section 66323 ADUs, see the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook, page 18 et seq.

Impermissible Front Setback Regulations

City code section 118.106.045(B) forbids new detached ADUs from being located in the front yard setback, with an encroachment allowed only if an 800 square foot ADU is not otherwise developable on the property.

However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) does not permit any imposition of front setback requirements, if the ADUs qualify for the protections of that section of law.

There are many policy reasons for this. For instance, a homeowner may prefer to preserve a private backyard space while redeveloping the less useful front yard. While children may play in the backyard, the front yard is closer to the street and less safe for a variety of activities. The City therefore must allow front yard ADUs that comply with the standards in Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) both on single family and on multifamily properties.

HCD has issued guidance under its authority in Government Code section 66327 (that guidance is located in the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook, page 18) affirming the duty of local agencies to allow ADUs protected by Government Code section 66323 in the front setback under all circumstances.

Impermissible Design Standards

City code sections 18.106.060(C)(1)-(6) impose a variety of design standards on ADUs.

However, as discussed supra, if the ADU qualifies for the protections of Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a) then the city must approve it ministerially, via building permit only, and cannot impose any such design regulations, as this section of state law only permits specified height and setback regulations.

From page 20 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook (emphasis added): “A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, ﬂoor area ratio, etc.).”

3 of 7

Additionally, this section contains non-objective standards (emphasis added):
● “Architecture of an accessory dwelling unit shall match the existing architectural style of the primary residence” (City code § 17.70.040(C)(1)(a).) ● “Use of same trim material and trim style” (City code § 17.70.040(C)(1)(a)(ii).) ● “Use of same roof form, roofing material and roof slope to the maximum extent feasible” (City code § 17.70.040(C)(1)(a)(iii).)
● “To the maximum extent feasible, mechanical equipment and plumbing, conduit, or cabling for utilities is not permitted on the exterior walls of the accessory dwelling unit.” (City code § 17.70.040(C)(1)(d).)

These are not objective standards, as it is impossible for an applicant to know, ex ante, what a reviewing official will consider to be of the same “style” as the existing home or what is the “maximum extent feasible.” Government Code section 66314, subdivision(b)(1) permits the imposition of objective standards, and Government Code section 66315 prohibits the imposition of standards beyond what is provided for in section 66314. The City may therefore not impose these non-objective standards on any ADUs. HCD’s guidelines, promulgated under its statutory authority in Government Code section 66327, confirm this.

The January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook states:
● State law “[r]equires local agencies to only impose objective standards on ADUs” (pg. 13).
● A requirement that ADUs “maintain a similar architectural style” is an example of a non-objective standard and thus “may not be imposed on ADU development” (pg. 35).

Impermissible Parking Requirements

City code section 18.106.060(C)(7) requires parking for each new ADU, less certain exceptions. However, as discussed supra, Government Code section 66323 mandates that the City approve a specific class of ADUs subject only to specified height and setback requirements, notwithstanding any local code requirements to the contrary. This means that the City cannot subject such ADUs to parking requirements.

Impermissible FAR Limitation

City code section 18.106.060(C)(8) applies underlying ﬂoor area ratio (“FAR”) limits (defined in section 18.08.190 of the City zoning code as “Floor area, basic)” to ADUs as follows:

4 of 7

The square footage of the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit(s) combined cannot exceed the maximum ﬂoor area ratio requirement for the lot, except that the maximum ﬂoor area ratio may not reduce the square footage of an accessory dwelling unit to less than 800 square feet if the accessory dwelling unit is 16 feet or less in height and located at least four feet from side and rear property lines.

This section of code is unlawful for several reasons. As discussed supra, Government Code section 66323 mandates that the City approve a specific class of ADUs subject only to specified height and setback requirements, notwithstanding any local code requirements to the contrary. This means that the City cannot subject such ADUs to FAR regulations.

The carveout for 800 square foot ADUs with 16 foot heights does not save this section of code.

First of all, Government Code section 66321, subdivision (b)(4) allows for ADUs up to 20 feet in height in certain circumstances, and section 66323, subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(4) allow statewide exemption ADUs to take advantage of the height limits found in section 66321, subdivision (b)(4).

Second, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(1)(A) allows accessory structures to be expanded by 150 square feet to facilitate ingress/egress when being converted into an ADU. Such 150 square foot expansion cannot be subject to such FAR limits.

Thirdly, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4) allows for detached, new construction ADUs on multifamily properties, with two detached ADUs allowed for proposed multifamily buildings and eight ADUs allowed for existing multifamily buildings. The City may not use this FAR limit to prevent the construction of such ADUs, nor may it use FAR to limit the size of these ADUs.

Impermissible Open Space Requirement

City code section 18.106.060(C)(9) requires 80 square feet of open space per ADU, subject to the same proviso that this may not reduce the size of an 800 square foot ADU that is not more than 16 feet in height. However, as discussed supra, Government Code section 66323 mandates that the City approve a specific class of ADUs subject only to specified height and

5 of 7

setback requirements, notwithstanding any local code requirements to the contrary. This means that the City cannot subject such ADUs to open space requirements.

Impermissible Historic Standards

Code section 18.106.060(G) prohibits an ADU from creating adverse impacts on any property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. As discussed supra, the City may not impose any development standards on ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code 66323, subdivision (a).

See pages 18-20 of the HCD’s January 2025 ADU Handbook for further information on section 66323 ADUs. For instance, from page 20 of the Handbook: “A local agency may not impose development or design standards, including both local standards and standards found in State ADU Law, on 66323 Units that are not specifically listed in Government Code section 66323. (Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a), (b).) This includes, but is not limited to, parking, height, setbacks, or other zoning provisions (e.g., lot size, open space, ﬂoor area ratio, etc.)”

Impermissible Deed Restriction Requirement

Code section 18.106.060(I) requires a restrictive covenant to be placed on the property prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU. This is a clear violation of Government Code section 66323, which prohibits any standards not explicitly authorized in that section.

Deed restrictions are also not permitted by Government Code section 66315, which forbids standards not listed in section 66314, and it is unclear why the City would want applicants to go through the trouble of filing such a deed restriction, other than to discourage ADU development by increasing development cost.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has communicated that such deed restrictions are unlawful. The January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook specifically forbids deed restrictions as a condition of ADU development (see page 22).

Additionally, such deed restrictions imposed on ADUs (or on other accessory structures) are unenforceable. This is due to the absence of horizontal privity between the Town and the applicant. In other words, since the Town does not own the applicant’s property at the time of the application, and does not own a neighboring property to whose benefit the proposed

6 of 7

restriction(s) redound, black letter property law bars the restrictions from binding future property owners. (See, e.g., Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enters (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 [describing the types of privity relationship between covenanting parties that allow enforcement of a deed restriction]; see also Civ. Code, §§ 1460 et seq.)

The City should therefore amend the proposed ordinance to remove the restrictive covenant requirement.

⧫ ⧫ ⧫

CalHDF appreciates the City’s effort to implement state law governing ADU construction.

However, the City should amend its ordinance to ensure that it complies with state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,

Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director

James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations

7 of 7

MEMORANDUM

Date:

March 18, 2025

To:

Mayor and City Council

From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development

Subject:

March 18, 2025, Agenda Item No. 18: Review and provide initial input on applicant-proposed East Lakes Residential Development Project in East Pleasanton

Steelwave, LLC, the property owner and applicant for the East Lakes Residential Development project, has provided the attached supplemental graphics/exhibits for Item 18 on the March 2025 City Council Agenda.

1. Open Space Diagram

2. Trails Connection Diagram

3. Project Rendering

20'
15'12'
20'
26'32' 25'
20'
10'
50'
30'
30'
12'
30'
32'
31' 32'
12'
12'
25'
22'
30'
31'
60'
20'
50'
60'
28' 43'
5'
11'22'
50'
55'
10'10'10'
50'
28' 28'
22'
25'
25'
20'
36'
25'
25'
20'
36'
20'
59'
50'
30'
20'
50'
40'
65'
13'
55'
22'
50' 50'50' 50'
12' 50'
No.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com EAST LAKES
20240959

USL PLEASANTON PLANNING
MARCH 13, 2025ALAMEDA COUNTY
A.02ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
CITY PREFERRED SITE PLAN0 150 30075 Scale: 1" = 150'-0" AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY 3-STORY
APARTMENTS IN 3-ACRE PARCEL

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT GATED

COMMUNITY

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES, (45 X 75), 2-STORY

CHATHAM PL

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY

COURT LOADED HOMES
(50 x 80), 2-STORY

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY
COURT LOADED HOMES:
(50 x 80 LOTS), 2-STORY

ACTIVE ADULT SMALL LOT
COURT HOMES, 1-STORY

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY

ALLEY LOADED COMPACT
LOTS (30 x 60), 3-STORY

EL CHARRO RD
8 MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES
(INTERLOCK)
MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES
(SIDE-BY-SIDE SHALLOW)

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES (48 X 85 LOTS), 1-STORY

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES (50 X 90 LOTS), 1-STORY
PARK

BUSCH ROAD

EXTENSION
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY

ALLEY ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
APN-946-4634-001
APN-946-4634-002

EAST LAKES
ALLEY

EL CHARRO RD (PRIVATE)

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK
neighborhood park
w/ amenities
mini park
courts
tree-lined streets
with 6ft wide side-
walks min
paseo
pedestrian walkway
one way pedestrian
access
East Lakes Trail
Trail Connections
Street Crossing
main pedestrian
access (two-way)
main pedestrian
access (two-way) at
gated community

OPEN SPACE AND

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

ACCESS ROAD
PARK
PARK

BUSCH ROAD

EAST PLEASANTON

TRAIL CONNECTION EXHIBIT
A0.5
355
365
360
355
360
365
355360
365
365

EL CHARRO RD
Dense Tree
Dense Tree
Dense Tree
Dense Tree
Dense Tree
Dense Tree
GNVGNV
GNV
GNV
365360
365
360
355
355
355
355
360
355360
UPUP
35 sp
UPUP
12'
30 sp
13'
9'
20'

UPUPUP UP
15'
15' 15'
18'

BUILDING
A-1 (24 dus)

BUILDING
A-2 (24 dus)

BUILDING
A-3 (24 dus)
BUILDING A-4 (24-30 dus)
11'
10'
12'
15 sp
21 sp
H35"
H59"
R L
R
L
R L
RL
PLAZA
7k sq. ft.

Community
Building
2k sq. ft
53'
11 sp
50'
PLAZA

2.4k sq. ft.
9'
50'
36'
22' 30'
30'
20'
26'
25'
16'
30'
30'
32'
32'25'
10'
9'
11'
32'
20'
10'
60'
15'
28'43'
20'
10'
50'
75'
50'
5'
50'
40'
10'
31'
12'
22'
20'
50'50'50'
11' 22'
20'
50'
55'
55'
22'
30'
30'
12'
30'
10'
22'
10'
17'
10'
17'
10'
69'
50'
32'
31'32'
12'
39'
20'
12'
28'
25'
28'
15'
22'
10'
26'
24'
22'
24'
22'
12'
12'
20'
12'
20'
12'
20'20'20'
74'
40'
80'
20'
80'
20'
50'
30'
31' 25' 20'
56'
25'
20'
36'
25'
5'
4'
4'
25'
4'
20'
36'
4'
50'
20'
60'
24'
50'
63'
62'
38'
59'
PP
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
80'
50'
30'
20'
9'
8'
PP
50'
65'

LAKE I

ARROYO MOCHO

STONERIDGE DRIVE

SANTA RITA ROAD

EL CHARRO RD

STANLEY BLVD

BUSCH ROAD

STREET C

STREET C
LOOP D
LOOP D

STREET B

BOULDER ST

STREET H

STREET B

STREET F

STREET G

VALLEY AVE

VALLEY A

STREET D

BUSCH RD

VALLEY AVE
EAST
LAKES

COPE LAKE

TRAIL LEGEND
EXISTING:

IRON HORSE TRAIL

EAST LAKES TRAIL

ARROYO MOCHO TRAIL

MARTIN TRAIL

VISIONED /
PROPOSED:

IRON HORSE TRAIL

EAST LAKES TRAIL

TRAIL CONNECTIONS - VILLAGES AT THE QUARRY
TRAIL

CONNECTIONS - ARROYO LAGO

BY OTHERS

VISIONED OR PREVIOUSLY PLANNED TRAILS (DASHED LINES ON MAPS) ARE CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS. UNTIL FUTURE TRAILS ARE ANALYZED, APPROVED AND BUILT NO PUBLIC ACCESS IS IMPLIED OR ALLOWED.

MARCH 13, 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – March 18, 2025 Regul
ar Meeting
Agenda Item #3: Receive a report on community engagement for the Fiscal Years 2025-27 budget development process

1. What are the number of calls for service for SROs?
A. The work that is done is not necessarily “calls for service”. With the implementation of RIMS on 12/18/24, the Police Department is now able to track more accurately how SROs are spending their time on duty. So far in 2025, the SROs have handled a combined 62 incidents, 4 cases, and made 1 arrest. SROs spend just over 20% of their shift assigned to incidents.

2. What are the numbe
r of calls for service that dayshift officers have in each area on patrol?
A. See the chart below:

3. What
is the downtime for patrol, if any?
A. The Poli
ce Department's data show that in 2024, officers were in available status 56% of the time, based on how officers note their change in status.

4. How many calls does the Vineyard Avenue station respond to as primary and as backup? How many calls does the Vineyard Avenue station respond to in Pleasanton vs Livermore? What are the call numbers for all stations? A. See the chart below for the 2024 Emergency Response by Pleasanton Fire Station

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 Station Livermore Pleasanton Other Total
1 – Nevada St. 71 1732 46 1849
2- Stoneridge Mall Rd. 18 1693 402 2113
3 – Santa Rita Rd. 241 2665 213 3119
4 – Oak Vista Way 17 1900 120 2037
5 – Machado Pl. 214 370 17 601
Pleasanton Total 510 7012 721 8243
Note:

Pleasanton receives funding for responses to unincorporated Alameda County, including Remen Tract, Castlewood, and areas around Ruby Hill.

Pleasanton receives funding from the Veteran’s Administration for “second-due” coverage to the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Center – Livermore (Arroyo Rd.).

Fire
Station general locations:
• Fire Station 1 – headquarters near Stanley Bl. X Bernal Av. • Fire Station 2 – Stoneridge Mall
• Fire Station 3 – Santa Rita Rd. X West Las Positas Bl. • Fire Station 4 – across from the fairgrounds
• Fire Station 5 – outside Ruby Hill

5. Do we have a list of all unfunded mandates and how much that costs us per year?
A. Staff is developing a list of unfunded mandates that includes regulations that impact the City across all departments. Examples include areas such as water conservation, air quality, water quality, climate, safety, etc. Staff will continue to develop the list to provide it to the City Council in the coming weeks.

Agenda Item #8: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Hexagon Transportation Consultants in the amount of $244,838 to provide planning and engineering services for an update to the Pleasanton Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including a 20 percent contingency of $48,968, for a total cost of up to $293,806, funded by the Alameda County Measure BB fund in the Bicycle and Pedestrian-related Improvements project, CIP No. 23543 Written Public Comment Submitted questions:

6. Why complete a full update instead of a minor update? A. Staff’s review of the chapters included in the 2018 Masterplan identified sect
ions of each chapter that required updating. As staff reviewed the necessary changes, the scope increased from a minor update to a larger scale update. As an example, the 2018 plan did not clearly define corridors or projects within the corridors and significant changes to the corridor names

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 and projects are needed. In addition, the 2018 plan did not include a strong focus on pedestrians. A new chapter is necessary to focus on high pedestrian generators, and the projects needed to support these locations.

7. Why was Hexagon Transportation selected instead of Fehr and Peers? A. The City received 2 proposals. The two proposals were very similar in their scopes of work. Staff met with both firms and Fehr and Peers was focused on the Safe Systems approach and Hexagon was focused on the pedestrian generators and organizing the corridors and projects. While the safe system approach is useful, with our low number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions, the Hexagon approach of improvements near high pedestrian generators was preferred. Toole Design is a sub-consultant for Hexagon and is an industry leader in pedestrian and bicycle design and have provided design guidance on many projects in the City. Staff is confident that Hexagon will provide an excellent product.

8. Please add some transparency and accountability measures for City Staff.

A. Task 4: Community Outreach and Engagement outlines proposed public events including options like community bike rides, pop-up events at the farmers market, walk/bike to school days and/or other City events. There will be 2 community meetings as well as online community surveys to inform and guide the master plan development. Hexagon will also hold 5 focus group meetings with stakeholders to collect additional input. All information will be provided on a public website. The project will be guided by the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Committee who will serve as the steering committee for the project.

9. Exhibit A, Task #2 (assigned to the consultant): Programs implemented since BPMP, 2018 was adopted. Please make this document publicly available to residents, BPTC, and City Council for review.

A. This request references the Hexagon proposal in which Hexagon outlined the pertinent documents and programs they would review as a part of the Master Plan Update. This would be a review of programs the City has implemented, not a document of said programs.

Agenda Item #12: Approve the purchase of three Ford Police Hybrid Utility Interceptors from National Auto Fleet Group in the not-to-exceed amount of $206,030, inclusive of a 10 percent contingency, and approve a budget amendment in the Police Vehicle Replacement Fund 511

10. Are we reusing the lightbar and other equipment from the old vehicles (are we doing all we can to reduce upfitting costs)?
A. Yes, whenever possible. We are using the lightbars until end of life or change in body style of vehicle. The current light bars have been used twice already,

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 and parts are no longer available. The body of the new vehicles has changed and the recommendation for the current length is longer than the current light bars. Other costly equipment includes push bumper due to change in mounting bracket, rear seat not compatible with new vehicles and siren control center (end of life and has been used for four vehicles already) existing is outdated and being replaced.

Agenda Item #18: Review and provide initial input on applicant-proposed East Lakes Residential Development Project in East Pleasanton

11. Is there anything else that can be shared about airport impacts and risk? A. The staff report summarizes staff’s current understanding of airport-related impacts and risks. As described and depicted in the Agenda Report, the East Lakes site is well outside of any of the LVK airport safety zones. The Airport Protection Area was a boundary established by Livermore, and incorporated into the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, intended to limit noise-sensitive uses, and thereby reduce noise related complaints and conflicts that might curtail airport operations. As part of the project evaluation, additional analysis of airport-related noise, hazards and other issues will be required, and will ultimately provide the City Council with the detailed information to properly assess whether or not residential development in the APA can be supported.

12. Is there a map that shows the current urban growth boundary? A. Please see Attachment 1, which depicts the Urban Growth Boundary and City Limit Line in the vicinity of the project, as mapped in the City’s GIS system.

13. Is there more information about the cost to build El Charro? A. Staff is working with Mark Thomas Inc. to develop construction cost estimate for El Charro Road. This preliminary cost estimate will help to determine the necessary financing and cost sharing that will be needed.

The preliminary cost estimate was just received (March 17, 2025) and staff is evaluating the costs provided. The initial estimate shows a total cost of $110 million to construct El Charro Road from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard.

It should be noted that some of the $110 million will be the sole responsibility of the developers (those adjacent to the new roadway are required by the Pleasanton Municipal Code to improve their project frontage) and some of the $110 million will be a shared cost between the developers and the City.

14. Did the cost benefit (EPS) analysis that was done for the East Side projects include the cost of El Charro?

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
5 A. EPS’ scope of work was to conduct a fiscal impact analysis (FIA), which evaluated on-going/annual revenues and costs associated with the East Pleasanton residential projects: i.e., the balance between new revenues (property tax and sales tax) versus the costs of providing services to new residents of the projects. The FIA does not consider one-time, capital project costs of building new infrastructure, but does wrap services such as streets maintenance into its analysis, to the extent those are part of the per capita “service” costs for existing and future residents and paid through the General Fund.

With respect to new infrastructure, City staff is continuing to evaluate the costs of new infrastructure, including El Charro Road, and to assess how those costs should be assigned to East Pleasanton developments contributing to the demand for improvements. The analysis will be based on the general principle that new development is required to pay for any new infrastructure needed to serve it. In the case of El Charro, because the road partially addresses citywide traffic, there is likely to be a need for the City to absorb at least a share of the total construction costs.

It is noted that, if the East Lakes and Arroyo Lago projects proceed in Alameda County, traffic congestion (which construction of El Charro would help mitigate) would still be contributed to the City road network, and the City would have no mechanism to require either project to contribute to the costs of construction, contribute impact fees, or implement other improvements within Pleasanton to alleviate that congestion.

East Pleasanton Boundaries
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) Op enStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Pleasanton City Limit
Urban Growth Boundary
World_Hillshade
3/17/2025
0 0.15 0.30.07 mi
0 0.25 0.50.13 km
1:11,687
Supplemental Material Q&A
Attachment 1

Pleasanton City CouncilMarch 18, 2025

Pleasanton City Council
March 18, 2025