41. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive.

42. Respondents committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by relying on an EIR that fails to meet the requirements of CEQA for disclosure, analysis, and mitigation of significant project impacts. As detailed below, among the deficiencies in the EIR are the failure to adequately describe the project under review, failure to disclose and evaluate significant air quality, traffic, noise, and biological impacts of the ADP failure to evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives, and failure to adequately mitigate significant project impacts. These deficiencies render the EIR inadequate as a matter of law and require that respondentsþ approval of the ADP be set aside.

43. CEQA requires that the nature and objectives of a project be disclosed and that the lead agency fully evaluate the "the whole of an action" that will have a significant effect on the environment. Public Resources Code s. 21065; 14 C.C.R. ss. 15124, 15378(a). The project description in the EIR fails to meet the statutory requirements of CEQA for the following noninclusive list of reasons:

a. The EIR relies on a truncated project description that fails to include all of the elements of the airport expansion project. Although the Port plans to implement several projects designed to increase airport capacity, many of these projects were excluded from the EIR's project description. Among the elements of the project that were excluded from consideration are:

i. Extension of Runway 29/11 to accommodate larger and heavier jets;
ii. Upgrading Runway 27L;
iii. Construction of the Air Rescue and Firefighting Facility;
iv. Construction of a new air traffic control tower;
v. Installation of a high speed exit taxiway;
vi. Expansion of the United Airlines maintenance hangar; and vii. The Airport Layout Plan that must be approved by FAA.

b. The EIR's project description is indefinite and unstable in that it appears to change depending on the environmental impact subject to review. For example, the EIR claims that the noise and air quality analyses included a series of other projects as part of the analysis of direct project impacts. These same projects, however, were excluded from consideration in the analysis of impacts to other resources such as endangered species or wetlands. As a result, the EIR does not use a consistent project description throughout the EIR.

44. The failure to use a complete, consistent and accurate project description renders the EIR inadequate as a matter of law and requires that approval of the ADP be set aside.

45. The EIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA in that it fails to adequately analyze adverse project impacts as required by law and its conclusions regarding project impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.

46. Although implementation of the ADP will have significant impacts on noise levels in neighboring communities, the EIR fails to provide a complete analysis of the projectþs impacts on noise. Deficiencies in the EIR's noise analysis include but are not limited to the following:

a. Failure to describe the existing environmental setting. For example, the EIR fails to identify how the Airport currently impacts neighboring residents in terms of communication interference, sleep disruption or physiological response to noise. Nor does the EIR describe how frequently residents are disturbed by overflying aircraft. Also excluded from the analysis are other contributors to noise such as background traffic noise, construction noise in the area, and noise from aircraft using other Bay Area airports. Although an accurate description of the existing noise environment is necessary to allow an analysis of direct and cumulative project impacts, all of these existing contributors to noise levels are omitted from the EIR's analysis.

b. Failure to utilize appropriate standards of significance. The EIR relies only on FAA standards of significance in its analysis of the significance of noise impacts. Although CEQA requires that an EIR determine whether a projectþs impacts will "conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located" or "increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas," (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G subsections (a) and (p)), the ADP EIR fails to take into account:

i. Standards of significance set forth in Alameda's General Plan which provide that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if, among other things, it will cause an increase of 6 decibels ("dB") or more or if it will result in a substantial increase in sleep disturbance and annoyance events;

ii. EPA standards of significance which identifies 55 dB DNL as the requisite noise level for areas with outdoor uses, including residential and recreation uses; and

iii. the impacts of increased single event noise.

Although information in comments submitted on the EIR indicates that noise from implementation of the ADP would increase single event noise, will adversely affect sleep patterns, interfere with speech communication, and exceed the EPA standards for safe noise levels, the EIR inappropriately concluded that the ADP will not have any significant noise impacts in the year 2000.

c. Failure to provide an analysis of noise impacts that would result from increased aircraft activity at the North field. Although the EIR admits that the diversion of flights to the North field could occur with implementation of the ADP, it fails to evaluate how these flights will affect neighboring residents.

d. Failure to evaluate noise increases associated with the extension of Runway 29, the increase in air cargo operations and the increase in helicopter operations.

e. Failure to use appropriate noise level indicators for evaluating noise impacts. Specifically, the EIR relies on CNEL for its measurements of noise levels even though such an indicator only measures average noise levels; it does not evaluate single event noise levels that will result with implementation of the ADP. Although these noise levels would cause sleep disruption and speech interference, these impacts are not accounted for in the determination of significant noise impacts. Because the EIR relied on average noise levels rather than single event noise levels that the public would actually experience, it has underestimated the impacts of the ADP.

f. Failure to adequately characterize the significance of noise impacts even assuming that CNEL would provide an accurate indication of noise impacts. For example, the EIR determines that certain residents in Alameda, Oakland, and San Leandro would experience an increase in noise levels by 3 dB -- a substantial increase in ambient noise levels for these neighborhoods. Notwithstanding this determination, the EIR fails to identify this increase as a substantial impact under CEQA.

g. Failure to evaluate health impacts associated with increased noise levels. Although sleep disturbance, speech interference, annoyance, and physiological stress result are frequently associated with airport noise, the health impacts associated with these phenomena are not discussed in the EIR.

h. Underestimation of noise impacts resulting from the use of unrealistic and unsubstantiated assumptions about the rate at which noisier older aircraft will be phased out for or converted to quieter aircraft.

47. The EIR fails to evaluate adverse impacts to air quality associated with implementation of the ADP. Among the significant air quality impacts that were ignored or underestimated in the EIR are:

a. Impacts associated with increased emissions of toxic air contaminants ("TACs"). The EIR identifies several toxic air contaminants and acknowledges that most would have emissions that exceed 1% of Alameda County-wide emissions, but it fails to conduct an analysis of the health risks associated with such emissions. Although the EIR asserted that a health risk analysis of increases in TACs was not possible, such an analysis was performed by an expert in health risk analysis and was submitted to the Port during its consideration of the ADP. This risk analysis demonstrates that the ADP will result in a significant risk in the residential areas near the Airport.

b. Failure to evaluate particulate (PM10 and PM-2.5) emissions from aircraft, even though particulate emissions pose a serious health threat and EPA has recently issued more stringent standards for regulation of particulate emissions.

c. Failure to adequately evaluate the project's conformity with the State Implementation Plan. Among other things, respondents have deferred a final conformity analysis until issuance of the federal environmental impact statement even though CEQA requires an analysis of the ADPþs consistency with adopted environmental plans, such as the State Implementation Plan.

d. Improperly underestimating impacts from the ADP by comparing emissions to the No Project alternative rather than the existing environment.

48. The EIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze significant project impacts on water quality, including but not limited to impacts caused by increased storm water runoff and pollutants in storm water; and impacts caused by construction activity.

49. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and disclose impacts to biological resources. Although expansion of the Airport will have significant adverse impacts to endangered species and wetlands, the EIR routinely underestimated these impacts. Deficiencies in the analysis of impacts to biological resources include but are not limited to:

a. The failure to disclose impacts to sensitive and endangered species such as the California least tern, the western snowy plover, the peregrine falcon, and the brown pelican. Although these species will be affected by increased aircraft operations, the paving of 189 acres under the ADP, and by construction impacts, as well as cumulative impacts caused by other projects in the vicinity, the EIR asserts, without support or analysis, that these species will not be adversely affected by the project;

b. The failure to adequately disclose impacts to burrowing owl populations on site. The State of California has determined that breeding populations of burrowing owls face extinction, yet the EIR provides no significant information about how the implementation of the ADP will adversely impact burrowing owls in terms of number of individuals affected, the amount of lost habitat, and the manner in which the ADP will adversely impact the species. Furthermore, the EIR concludes that impacts will be reduced below a level of significance even though it presents no information concerning the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and the mitigation plan has yet to be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department of Fish and Game.

c. The improper conclusion that impacts to more common plant and animal species will be insignificant even though the EIR admits that substantial amounts of direct habitat for these species will be destroyed or adversely affected by the ADP.

d. The underestimation of impacts to wildlife as the result of lost wetland habitat by assuming that only 5.3 acres of wetlands will be lost when the wetlands impact analysis in theFinal EIR states that 7.3 acres of wetlands will be lost.

e. The failure to fully discloses and evaluate impacts to wetlands. Deficiencies in the wetlands analysis include, but are not limited to:

i. The disclosure for the first time in the Final EIR that the ADP will result in the filling of 7.3 acres of wetland -- two acres more than was disclosed in the Draft EIR. The additional two acres of wetlands that will be filled is a significant impact that should have been disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR;

ii. Failure to properly mitigate impacts to wetlands by relying on a 1.14 to 1 replacement ratio, when recommended replacement ratios are generally in the range of 2 or 3 acres of new wetlands for every acre that is lost to development.

iii. Failure to disclose and analyze impacts to wetlands and associated wildlife caused by storm water runoff and construction related activity; and

iv. Failure to evaluate the impacts to wildlife and wetlands in areas where the Port intends to create replacement wetlands.

50. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate impacts to cultural resources such as the impacts to North Field, a designated historic site.

51. The EIR fails to disclose and analyze air traffic safety impacts associated with the ADP.

52. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project. Deficiencies in the cumulative impacts analysis include but are not limited to:

a. Failure to analyze the combined impacts of the ADP plus all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Since the Port first undertook preparation of the EIR for the ADP, it has approved and plans to approve a myriad of projects that will have significant impacts on the environment, but it has failed to include these projects in its analysis of cumulative impacts. Projects improperly excluded from the analysis include but are not limited to the following projects:

• Federal Express truck facility at distribution center and parking lot;
• Adding a Baggage claim facility at Terminal 2 South Field;
• Remodeling and extension of the Ameriflight hanger;
• Construction of the temporary seasonal overflow parking lot (500 spaces);
• Construction of new parking lot at the corner of Doolittle Drive and Swan Way for Federal Express;
• Design review for Southwest Airlines modification and use of Gates 12, 14 and 17. (Tenant improvements in remote operations area and modification to Gates 12, 14 and 17);
• Sierra Expressway Gate 18 -- Develop aircraft parking spaces and site preparation for Sierra Expressway commuter terminal;
• Expansion of the United Airlines parking pavement to widen the traffic lane to Air Cargo Road and to add 28-30 new parking spaces;
• Overlay runway 27L/9R with asphalt concrete including the widening of shoulders;
• United Airlines improvements to office space;
• Paving at Dyn Air tank farm paving of 37,200 square feet;
• Installation of a second level walkway between Terminals I and II;
• Southwest Airlines new passenger holding area below Gates 26 and 26A;
• Establishing an off-airport parking lot at 333 Hegenberger Road;
• Increased apron area and lease extension for U.S. Postal Service;
• Widening of intersection of Taxiway 5 at Taxiway 1;
• Airborne Express relocation from South Field to Hanger 9 North Field;
• Southwest Airlines remodel of non-passenger portions of Terminal 1;
• Modification and expansion walls in terminal service area in M-102 office area;
• Construction of a right turn lane from Airport Dr. to Neil Armstrong Way;
• Asphalt overlay restripping Airport Drive;
• Southwest Airlines remodel of Terminal 2;
• Federal Express Sort Center;
• Road widening (Airport Drive);
• Expansion to Terminal One Baggage Area;
• Overlay Taxiway 5 between Runway 27L and Taxiway 10;
• Overlay and widen Taxiway 5 between Taxiway 10 to Taxiway 1;
• Upgrade Taxiway 1;
• Overlay of Inbound Airport Drive.
• General Improvements in Terminal One including upgrade to Gate 1;
• Relocation and Improvement to Taxiway 2;
• Overlay of Airport Drive (Phase III);
• Improvements to Earhart Road;
• Runway Extension Engineering Planning and Environmental Study;
• Airport Signage and Access Planning Study;
• Land Records Management for Airport Terminal Facilities;
• BART Connector - Environmental Study.
• Improvements to Gate 26A;
• Aircraft Loading Bridge for Gate 26A;
• Taxiway B Shoulder Improvements;
• Design of North Field Apron (design only);
• Construction of North Field Parking Apron;
• Overlay of North Field Apron.
• Construction of Second Jetway at International Arrivals Building;

b. The failure to adequately disclose and analyze the significance of cumulative project impacts. For example, although the Final EIR asserts that certain projects were taken into account in some of the impact analyses (such as noise and air quality impacts), nothing in the EIR demonstrates that such projects were in fact included in the analysis.

c. The failure to adequately evaluate cumulative air quality impacts, including the combined impacts of the ADP with air emissions from stationary sources.

d. The failure to adequately evaluate cumulative noise impacts, by improperly excluding from the analysis such other sources of noise as the expansion of the San Jose Airport, traffic noise, and noise from construction of the ADP projects.

e. The failure to adequately evaluate cumulative adverse impacts to biological resources, including wetlands.

53. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate adverse impacts to land use, including incompatibility with locally adopted plans, such as Alameda's General Plan, and other projects planned for the area.

54. The EIR fails to adequately evaluate impacts from flooding, such as the exacerbation of runoff conditions and the inadequacy of detention pond capacity from an increase in the paved area at North Field.

55. The EIR fails to address adverse odor impacts caused by jet fuels.

56. The EIR fails to analyze the growth-inducing impacts of the ADP as required by section 15126(g) of the CEQA Guidelines. Inadequacies in the growth-inducing impact analysis include but are not limited to the failure to discuss the ways in which the project would stimulate the demand for additional air-side access to Airport facilities and consequently, how that increase in demand for Airport capacity would stimulate economic activity in the surrounding communities.

57. The EIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze the traffic impacts resulting from the implementation of the ADP.

58. Section 15126(d)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to examine a range of alternatives sufficient to permit a reasoned choice among them, and specifies that the range of alternatives must be selected and discussed so as to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.

59. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to adequately analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, and by failing to select and discuss a range of alternatives which promotes meaningful public participation and informed decision making about this project. The deficient analysis of alternatives included in the Draft EIR is not remedied by additions made in theFinal EIR. Inadequacies in the EIR's alternatives analysis include, but are not limited to the following:

a. No alternative besides the No Project alternative is fully evaluated and compared with the ADP.

b. Other alternatives identified by the Port in the EIR are rejected as þinfeasibleþ after only cursory comments and without reasonable basis. Examples of alternatives rejected without reasonable basis include, but are not limited to, the following:

i. The joint civilian/military use of Travis Air Force Base. Joint use of the Travis Air Force Base was studied in the mid 1970s and found to be an acceptable method of handling increased Bay Area air traffic.

ii. The use of Moffett Field for commercial cargo service at Moffett Field even though air carrier services have been successfully developed at similar locations, such as Napa and Concord airports. Development of cargo (and/or passenger) activity at Moffett Field could significantly reduce impacts at the Airport.

iii. The construction of a new Bay Area Air Carrier Airport Site. The EIR indicates that it is not possible to estimate the operational impacts of activity at a fourth Bay area airport; however, it is both possible and customary to estimate operational impacts of airport projects.

iv. Selection of a Moderate Build alternative. Although the Final EIR notes that all alternatives to the ADP besides the no project alternative were rejected from full consideration in the EIR because they "were not feasible or prudent, were not capable of satisfying the purpose and need for the project, and/or were inconsistent with the Port's environmental and economic goals for the project," there is no evidence supporting any such conclusion with respect to the Moderate Build alternative, and the Final EIR does not explicitly give that or any other reason for rejecting that alternative.

v. Implementation of a project alternative consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement between Alameda and the Port.