City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
VIN
APPEAL
Application
City of Camarillo Case No CPD-226M(5)/CUP.422
Department of Community Development Fee $3957
601 Carmen Drive BrettM
SUBMITTAL APPLICATION Staff Use Received by
P.O. Box 248
Date Filed 12/15/23
Camarillo, CA 93011-0248
Phone: 805.388.5360; Fax: 805.388.5388 HTE No. 22-604
(Keep Receipt with Application)
Email: [email protected]
Appeals may be filed by the applicant, member of the City Council or general public and must be filed within the time specified for the case as set forth in the City of Camarillo Zoning Ordinance. This appeal form must be complete, signed by the Appellant, and accompanied by the required filing fee.
In accordance with the provisions of the City of Camarillo Zoning Ordinance, I hereby appeal the Planning Commission decision of 125 , 2023, regarding the application described as COSTCo (Case No.). The Planning Commission's decision was as follows:
AYPROVAI
APPLICANT The grounds for the Appeal are as follows:
SEE ATTACHED
(Please attach any additional material, if necessary)
Name Darshann M. Wienick, Esq.
Email (required) [email protected]
Address 120 Vantis Drive, Suite 300
City Aliso Viejo State_ CA _Zip 92656
Phone (8 am - 5pm) 949.627.7167 Cell 949.424.3854 Fax N/A APPELLANT Is the Appellant a party in the application? No . If not, state the basis for filing as an "Aggrieved Person." Appellant is the attorney for an unassociated geNo'of aggrieved persons comprised of Camarillo and Ventura County residents, neighbors, and merchants, collectively known as Ventura County Citizens Against Mega Gas (VCCAMG). VCCAMG wishes to appeal the December 5, 2023 approval by the Camarillo Planning Commission of the Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 for the proposed Costco project. Please see the attached letter detailing the reasons for VCCAMO% appeal and wign ER must be conducted for this proposed project.
Signature of Appellant_ Date December 15, 2023
Case Number Time Allowed for Appeal
(Days)
DEPT. USE Appeal filed and fee paid on
Appeal form sent to City Clerk on
Final Action by City Council • APPROVED / • DENIED on _ by Reso # F: (HANDOUTS Applications... Applications in Word... Appeal mm (7/5/19) Law Office of Darshann M. Wienick
Via email and hand delivery
December 15, 2023
Jacklyn Lee, AICP, Planning Manager
City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
P.O. Box 248
Camarillo, CA 93011-0248
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: Appeal of the City of Camarillo's Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Dear Ms. Lee:
I am an attorney representing the unassociated group of Camarillo and Ventura County residents, neighbors, and merchants, collectively known as Ventura County Citizens Against Mega Gas ("VCCAMG"). I write to set forth bases for VCCAMG's appeal application (submitted concurrently herewith) challenging the City of Camarillo Planning Commission's decision to approve the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 ("SSMND") for the proposed Costco project "Costco Project" to be located at the corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard in the City of Camarillo. Please also see Exhibit A to this letter, which is the public comment letter submitted by VCCAMG on November 28, 2023, the contents of which are incorporated fully herein by reference.
As you know, the original project was proposed nearly two decades ago and resulted in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ("FMND"') adopted by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission and City Council in 2007. At the time, the proposed project was for a shopping center only—not a massive 32-pump fuel station. It is simply not possible that the original FMND or even the Final Subsequent MND ("FSMND") approving the 2016 proposed shopping center project could have properly analyzed all the serious and significant impacts posed by the Costco Project.
120 VANTIS DRIVE, SUITE 300
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
949.627.7167 | [email protected]
Fugitive Dust/Excavation for Underground Storage Tanks ("USTs") The proponents of Costco Project have done their best to minimize the elephant in the room, namely the potential serious and significant environmental impacts posed by the proposed 32- pump fuel station. As Commissioner Limon pointed out during the December 5, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, no studies have been conducted to adequately inform the public of the environmental impacts associated with excavating and installing underground storage tanks, including the potential health and safety impacts of fugitive dust.
Tellingly, proponents of the Costco Project do not even try to argue that these analyses have been performed and disseminated to the public, nor could they. The simple fact is that neither the 2007 FMND nor the 2016 FSMND could have contemplated the massive-scale excavation that would be required to install USTs that could support a 32-pump fuel station. Perhaps new technology could minimize the environmental impacts to a point where they are not deemed significant under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). However, that is not the point. A complete Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to analyze these potential significant impacts so that the members of the community are fully informed of the extent of these impacts. Indeed, this is the raison d'être of CEQA.
Energy Impacts Analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F An EIR never has been prepared for any of the proposed projects at this site. Thus, it is not surprising that there has never been a study on the energy impacts that will result from the Costco Project. This is required by Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines. See Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, 248 Cal.App.4th 256 (2016); California Clean Energy Committee v.
City of Woodland, 225 Cal.App.4' 173 (2014).
In summary, to comply with the energy impacts analysis required in Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, an EIR must consider potentially significant energy implications of a project, including energy use attributable to vehicle trips, operational and construction energy use, and renewable energy options. The EIR should also discuss mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Both of the above-cited cases reviewed address the requirements of Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines. In Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, the court discussed the importance of calculating energy use attributable to vehicle trips and operational and construction energy use. The court also noted that the CEQA guidelines require that "energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant" (p. 262).
Thus, the court held that an EIR must include a discussion of mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. 3 The California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland case also is instructive. The court found that the City's EIR was inadequate for failing to assess or consider mitigation for transportation energy impacts. The court emphasized that an EIR is "fatally defective" when it fails to include a detailed statement setting forth mitigation measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy (p. 209). The court also noted that Appendix Frequires consideration of "decreasing reliance on fossil fuels" and "increasing reliance on renewable energy sources" (p. 210).
Conclusion
Simply put, the failure to conduct a comprehensive EIR tailored specifically to the Costco Project violates CEQA. Appellants respectfully request that the Planning Commission's decision on December 5, 2023, approving the Costco Project be set aside and that a new EIR be ordered in light of the foregoing.
Respectfully submitted,
Dans the
Darshann M. Wienick, Esq.
Attorney for Ventura County Citizens Against Mega Gas
Enclosure
EXHIBIT A
November 28, 2023
Department of Community Development
Attention: Jaclyn Lee, Planning Manager
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo CA 93010
Dear Ms. Lee,
We are an unassociated group of Camrillo and Ventura County residents, neighbors and merchants who have concerns about Costco's plans to build a new 160,000 sq. ft. warehouse, tire center, and 32 pump fuel station, on 12 acres of open space at the corner of Springville Drive and W. Ventura Blvd. in Camarillo.
Please accept into the public record, and for the City's consideration and response(s), our comments on the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 (hereafter referred to as "SSMND").
We strongly disagree with Cadence Environmental Consultant's determination that no new significant impacts were identified that would require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
On the contrary, we believe that the SSMND is ripe with errors and relies on faulty data and analysis that raises more questions than answers. Specifically, as it relates to estimated project impacts to traffic, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), air quality and CO2 emissions, and noise/light pollution.
We also believe that it is not only reasonable, but responsible, to demand that the city require that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be conducted by an independent third party, so that neighbors will know the true impacts this project will have on their daily lives and on traffic, commute and emergency response times, pollution (air, water, noise and light), public safety, wildlife and birds that live on the property, and for existing businesses and jobs in the surrounding neighborhood.
The fact that a comprehensive EIR has not been carried out for this project site since before 2007, when it was converted from agricultural uses and cultivation to commercial retail uses, is unconscionable, given the scope and scale of the proposed Costco and Amara shopping center development and the significant impacts it would have on the surrounding community, residents, environment and wildlife.
The original project called for a massive commercial shopping center, and no fuel station, that only required an MND, not an EIR, that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, back in 2007.
When that proposed development fell through, the project was later modified back in 2016 (the Amara Shopping Center project) and the city determined then that the proposed Amara shopping center (again, with no fuel station proposed or studied), required only a subsequent MND, no EIR, which was approved by the Planning Commission (no Council review or action) in 2016 as the Final Subsequent MND. The 2016 Final Subsequent MND anticipated a 452K sq ft. Kohls anchored shopping center, but that project ultimately fell through as well.
Here we are now in November 2023, seven (7) years after the Final Subsequent MND was approved by the Planning Commission, faced with a proposal and plans for a very different project that calls for development of a new 163,177-square-foot, one-story Costco Wholesale retail building and free-standing Gi
fuel facility with 16 dispensers (i.e., 32 fueling positions) and a parking lot consisting of approximately 901 stalls on the eastern 20 acres of the project site. The project application and SSMND also assesses a future "second phase" of the Amara Shopping Center that would include the remaining 335,823 square feet of building area of the approved 499,000 square feet of commercial space in the western portion of the project site.
The proposed development before the city is vastly different in scope and scale than what was proposed back in 2007, and more recently, in 2016. Specifically, the addition of the proposed 32-pump fuel station, with four massive underground tanks, should in and of itself, require a conditional use permit and an EIR since a fuel station, let alone one of this massive size, was not studied nor considered as part of the uses and approvals granted by the City for the subject property in 2007 and 2016, under the Final MND (2007) and Final Subsequent MND (2016), respectively.
It is clear that this is a wholly different proposed development and use, charading as a shadow of the projects) for a single shopping center that was approved back in 2007 and 2016, respectively. It appears that the developer is simply tacking on a "second phase" of the Amara shopping center, to be included in the SSMND, to avoid having to conduct an EIR and new, separate studies and analysis, beyond what little is required in a Subsequent MND. Case in point, no applications, plans or uses for the "second phase" of the Amara shopping center have been submitted for the City's consideration, so how can these impacts be properly assessed in the SSMND for this project when there is no Amara shopping center project being proposed or considered? This appears to be a new and standalone project with a major new use, a massive fuel station, never properly studied nor considered by the City.
An EIR is also called for to ensure that the City considers alternative plans for the site that do not include an unstudied fuel station and a two phased commercial retail development vs. a single connected shopping center. Furthermore, all the cumulative impacts from the many new developments, housing and construction that has since come to fruition in between and surrounding Ventura Blvd. and Springville Drive, have not adequately been assessed and studied, nor mitigations considered, as it relates to this project and cumulative impacts to VMTs, CO2 emissions, noise/light pollution and public safety.
For example, the City just approved a major expansion of the Camarillo airport, and there is a 47-acre property, proximate to the project site, that anticipates the development of an additional 268,500 square feet of commercial uses and 198,767 square feet of industrial and/or office uses. Where is the in-depth study and analysis of all these cumulative impacts for residents to review and assess so that they can make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase a home near all of this proposed construction and development?
Traffic
Given the major impacts that the proposed development is anticipated to have on traffic, VTs and commute times in the surrounding area, we demand that the City require comprehensive study and analysis of project impacts to traffic by an independent third party, preferably as part of a much-needed EIR.
We take exception to the fact that the bulk of the data that the City is relying on in the SSMND, as it relates to traffic, is coming from a firm, Kittleson & Associates, that has conducted numerous traffic impact studies ra
on behalf of, and paid for by, Costco, all over the west coast. They are hardly an independent third party providing fair and balanced information to the City and residents.
With that said, we also object to the "fuzzy math" and analysis being used and relayed in the SSMND that tries to curtail and hide the true impacts that this massive development will have on traffic, VMTs and commute and emergency response times in the surrounding area. Specifically, trying to decrease the estimated number of new daily vehicle trips the project will generate (and that will very much impact the thousands of residents who live just north of the project site), by using unvetted (by an independent third party) data from Costco that discounts Camarillo based trips currently traveled to nearby Costco properties in other communities, to ultimately whittle that massive figure (16,239 trips) down to a laughable rough one-third of that estimated figure (5,963 trips). And all of this is being done using formulas, as opposed to current observed traffic studies in the field on peak days and times in the year.
While we don't disagree that some Camarillo shoppers headed to Costco outside of our community will likely shop at a new proposed Costco store in Camarillo instead of driving out of town to do so, and that those averted trips may therefore slightly decrease the number of regional vehicle trips made by capturing Camarillo Costco shoppers, those same trips from other parts of Camarillo (16,239 trips) going to other Costco stores will instead all be converging on the new site and impacting all of the neighbors who live north of the site. Add in the 14,918 vehicle trips magically assumed from the non-existent plans for the "second phase" of the Amara shopping center, and you have 31,157 daily vehicle trips per day on the roads surrounding the project site. How does this not call for more thorough study and mitigation measures to offset these impacts? Common sense alone dictates that 31,157 vehicle trips per day is very much going to impact traffic, commute and emergency response times, and carbon emissions in the surrounding neighborhoods. This issue needs more independent study.
Table 12 - Daily Trip Generation Estimate - Proposed Costco Warehouse and Fuel Statio vith Remaining Approved Amara Shopping Cente
Land Use/Trip Type Size Weekday Daily Trip Ends
Costco Warehouse and Fuel Station 16,239
Internal Capture (28%) (4,547)
External Trip Ends 11,692
163,400 sq. ft. (2,455)
Pass-by Trip Ends (21%)
Diverted Trip Ends (28%) (3,274)
Primary Trip Ends 5,963
Remaining Approved Amara Shopping Center 14,918
Internal Capture (28%) (4,177)
External Trip Ends 10,741
335,600 sq. ft. (3,652)
Pass-by Trip Ends (34%)
Diverted Trip Ends (26%) (2,793)
Primary Trip Ends 4,296
Total Trip Ends (Costco and Remaining Shopping 31,157
Center)
Furthermore, the proposed project calls for a free-standing 32-pump fuel facility that was not envisioned for in the Amara Shopping Center plans. In addition, the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the proposed Costco are different than the trip generation assumptions for a shopping center as evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1, and the URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) model used to estimate air pollutant emissions in Final MND 2006-17 has been replaced with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). It is clear that a wholly different standard for assessing development impacts to traffic, as it relates to CEQA, has been mandated since the Final MND and Final Subsequent MND for this project site were approved back in 2007 and 2016, respectively. Simply putting in the old data from the 2007 and 2016 MNDs into new formulas to meet these new requirements is inadequate and requires more thorough review and actual field analysis and study.
Pollution
According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a potentially significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase of 25 pounds per day or more of operational emissions of ROC and/or NOx. As shown in Table 2 of the draft SSMND report, the daily operational emissions of both ROC and NOx would exceed 25 pounds per day.
Therefore, the air quality im pact of the proposed project would continue to be potentially significant.
It appears that the consultant's response to offset the "significant" impacts this project will have on air quality and carbon emissions for thousands of residents who live near the project site, is to have Costco make a modest contribution of $243,557 to a TDM fund, required under mitigation measure AQ-4. This is unacceptable. Why are Costco and the developer not being asked to make real modifications to their proposed development in order to offset the significant increase in carbon emissions and harmful air pollution that they will be generating? This is similar to massive polluters paying a fee to offset their carbon emissions rather than doing the real work and lowering their carbon footprint and practices. Why is Costco not being asked to consider alternative plans then that include no fuel station, or perhaps a fuel station with half the number of pumps, to offset the significant emissions they would be generating? Furthermore, the preliminary site plan (Pg. 14) provides a total of 901 parking stalls (BTW, that's over 100+ parking spaces beyond what is required, that's a lot of unnecessary asphalt), including 19 handicapped accessible stalls and 181 stalls for electric vehicles. Of the 181 electric vehicle stalls, only 46 stalls would provide electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at first occupancy while the remaining 135 stalls would provide electrical infrastructure for the future installation of EVSE. That means that only 5% of the 901 parking stalls would have EV charging infrastructure (901 minus the 46 initial EV charging spots = 855 parking spots w/o EV charging).
With the state of California requiring that all new cars sold in 2035 and beyond be zero-emission vehicles, and the fact that we as a city and state are supposed to be making a concerted effort to significantly decrease carbon emissions to address climate change, how does a 32-pump gas station and only 5% of the proposed parking lot spaces being truly EV charge ready, meet these new mandated standards? Simply put, it does not. More study is needed.
We were also underwhelmed by the lack of thorough and independent analysis, if any, examining impacts the project will have on noise pollution (during and after construction), light pollution, and stormwater runoff pollution from dozens of acres of newly paved asphalt. In terms of light and noise pollution that the proposed gas station will generate, why is the fuel station not required to operate during the same hours as the proposed warehouse? The retail warehouse and tire center hours are anticipated to be Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The gas station hours are expected to be daily from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. More study is needed.
For these reasons, and more (to be submitted at a later date), it is clear that there are simply more questions than answers that still need to be addressed before the city approves anything. We respectfully request that the city slow down and require that a comprehensive EIR be conducted by an independent third party, and that as part of that EIR, alternative plans, including those that include no or a smaller fuel station, be considered. We also request that meaningful mitigation measures be set in place as conditions of any project approvals and entitlements, that lessen projects impacts to traffic, VMTs, carbon emissions, pollution and to the environment.
Sincerely,
Ventura Lounty litizens Against Mega Gas