City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
VIN APPEAL
Application
CPD - 2210H(5) /CUP-422
City of Camarillo Case No
$ 3957.00
Department of Community Development Fee
J.lee
601 Carmen Drive Received by
APPLICATION Staff Use 12-14-23
SUBMITTAL P.O. Box 248 Date Filed
Camarillo, CA 93011-0248 22-604
HTE No.
Phone: 805.388.5360; Fax: 805.388.5388 (Keep Receipt with Application) Email: [email protected]
time specified for the case as set forth in the City of Camarillo Zoning Ordinance. This appeal form must be Appeals may be filed by the applicant, member of the City Council or general public and must be filed within the complete, signed by the Appellant, and accompanied by the required filing fee.
In accordance with the provisions of the City of Camarillo Zoning Ordinance, 1 hereby appeal the Planning , 2023, regarding the application described as Costco Wholesale Commission decision of December 5
(Case No.). The Planning Commission's decision was as follows: Adopt a resolution approving Subsequent MND 2023-4. Adopt a resolution approving CPD-226M(5) and CUP-422, subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
APPLICANT The grounds for the Appeal are as follows:
The 2023 SMND fails to ensure that the Project's impacts on air quality and energy are less than significant. Because those impacts remain potentially significant, the 2023 SMND is improper under CEQA and the Project requires a SEIR prior to approval. (See attached letter.) Additionally, the final SMND should have been recirculated for at least 20 days due to its identification of and mitigation of new potential impacts that were not disclosed in the draft SMND. (Please attach any additional material, if necessary)
Name Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (represented by Lozeau Drury LLP) Email (required) [email protected]
Address 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 _Zip 94612
State. California
City Oakland Cell (510) 836-4200 Fax (510) 836-4205
Phone (8 am - 5 pm) (510) 836-4200 _ If not, state the basis for filing as an "Aggrieved Person." APPELLANT Is the Appellant a party in the application? No (Yes/No)
Members of appellant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") live and/or work in the vicinity of the proposed Project. They breathe the air, suffer traffic congestion, and will suffer other environmental impacts of the Project unless it is properly mitigated.
Date 12/13/2023
Signature of Appellant. Brian then
Case Number CPD-226 M(5)/CUP-422 Time Allowed for Appeal (Days)
DEPT. USE Appeal filed and fee paid on 12-14-23
Appeal form sent to City Clerk on
by Reso #
Final Action by City Council • APPROVED / • DENIED on _ mm (7/5/19)
F:\HANDOUTS\Applications... \Applications in Word... Appeal LOZEAU DRURYUP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]
Via email and cityofcamarillo.org/publiccomment
November 30, 2023
Beverly Vandermeulen, Chair Jaclyn Lee, Planning Manager Dave Edsall, Vice-Chair Department of Community Development Rob Davidson City of Camarillo
Gladys Limon 601 Carmen Drive
Tom Murphy Camarillo, California, 93010
Planning Commission [email protected]
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo CA 93010
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422)
Dear City of Camarillo Planning Commission and Ms. Lee:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422) ("Project") scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission's December 5, 2023 meeting.
The Project site is part of a larger 44.84-acre site that was originally approved for development in 2007 and subsequently amended in 2016. For environmental review of those rojects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA"), the City adopted a mitigater negative declaration ("2006 MND) and a subsequent MND in 2016 ("2016 SMND"'). The 2006 MND and 2016 SMND each analyzed the buildout of up to 499,000 square-feet of commercial/retail uses and associated parking. No development of the 44.84-acre site has yet occurred under those prior approvals.
The Project proposes the development of a 163,177-square-foot Costco retail warehouse and 32-pump freestanding fuel facility on the eastern 20 acres of the 44.84-acre site located between U.S. 101 and Ventura Boulevard, west of Camarillo Town Center West and east of Springville Drive (APN 230-0-020-250). The City has prepared another subsequent MND ("2023 SMND"') to analyze the impacts of the Project.
SAFER is concerned that the City is proceeding with the 2023 SMND rather than preparing a subsequent environmental impact report ("SEIR"). An MND is proper only if project SAFER Comment
Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422)
November 30, 2023
revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and ... there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) Under the "fair argument" standard applicable to MNDs, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 931.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of MNDs. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) As discussed below, the 2023 SMND fails to ensure that the Project's impacts on air quality and energy are less than significant. Because those impacts remain potentially significant, the 2023 SMND is improper under CEQA and the Project requires a SEIR prior to approval.
SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.)
DISCUSSION
The 2023 SMND Fails to Establish that Emissions of ROCs and NOx Will Be Less Than Significant.
The City and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District ("VCAPCD") have established a 25 pounds/day ("Ibs/day)" significance threshold for emissions of reactive organic compounds ("ROCs") and nitrogen oxides ("NOx"). The 2023 SMND admits that the construction and operational phases of the Project will exceed the 25 lb/day threshold for ROCs and NOx. (SMND, pp. 33-34.) The 2023 SMND then applies three mitigation measures (AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4) to reduce these impacts. However, the 2023 SMND does not conclude or otherwise present evidence that the mitigation measures will actually reduce the emissions to a less-than-significant level. For construction-related emissions, the 2023 SMND claims, As discussed previously, the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines do not require that mitigation bring construction emissions to below 25 pounds per day - only that mitigation reduce construction emissions to the extent feasible. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not considered significant.
(2023 SMND, p. 33.) However, that is not what VCAPCD's guidelines or the City's guidelines say. VCAPCD's guidelines explicitly state that "[ilt is possible that project emissions will still be significant after inclusion of all feasible mitigation measures" and that "there are very few feasible measures available to reduce [ROC and NOx] emissions." (VCAPCD Guidelines §§ 7.2,
7.4.3). Furthermore, under the City's CEQA guidelines, there is a potentially significant impact SAFER Comment
Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422)
November 30, 2023
where ROC or NOx emissions exceed 25 Ibs/day regardless of whether mitigation has been applied. If ROC and NOx impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible yet still remain significant, the proper CEQA document is a SEIR-not a SMND.
For operation emissions, the SMND claims that AQ-4 (which requires payments to a transportation demand management ("TDM") fund) would reduce the Project's cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. However, this again ignores VCAPCD's guidelines and the City's guidelines. Although the VCAPCD guidelines acknowledge that TDM funding may "lessen|] or reduce[]" impacts of ROCs and NOx, VCAPCD guidelines also explicitly state, In most cases, the emissions from a development project will still exceed the .. 25 pounds per day threshold in the remainder of the county... Therefore, each lead agency should determine if overriding considerations are necessary to approve the development project due to these emissions.
(VCAPCD Guidelines, § 7.5.3.)
Again, the standard for a SMND is not whether impacts have been reduced to the extent feasible, but rather whether the impacts have been rendered less than significant. Although AQ- 2, AQ-3, and AQ-4 certainly reduce the Project's impacts, there is no evidence that the Project's emissions of ROCs and NOx will be reduced to less than 25 Ibs/day as required by VCAPCD's guidelines and the City's guidelines. Therefore, the Project may result in significant air quality impacts and an SEIR must be prepared prior to further consideration of the Project.
V. The 2023 SMND Fails to Establish that the Project's Energy Impacts Will Be Less Than Significant.
CEQA provides that all Projects must include measures "to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy." (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEOA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy." (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The "wise and efficient use of energy" is achieved by "(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources." (Id.) Mere compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) ("Title 24") does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 165 (League to Save Lake Tahoe); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) Even where an agency has concluded that a project's impacts on energy resources would be less than significant, a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all "renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project." (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-67.) A lead agency's failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals SAFER Comment
Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422)
November 30, 2023
raised during the environmental review process constitutes a "prejudicial error." (Id. at 168.) Despite CEQA's requirement to consider all renewable energy options, the 2023 SMND's analysis of alternative energy merely relies on compliance with Title 24. (SMND, pp. 56-57.) Because mere compliance with Title 24 is insufficient to determine that energy impacts are less than significant, the SMND's energy analysis is inadequate and its conclusion that the Project's energy impacts will be less than significant is unsupported.
At a minimum, the City should consider the feasibility of solar PV panels for the Project's operational energy use. The 2023 SMND acknowledges that "the north-south orientation of the proposed Costco building and the flat roof would provide the optimum conditions for the use of passive and future active solar strategies." (2023 SMND, p. 101.) In order to comply with CEQA, feasible solar PV should be considered and required as a mandatory condition of approval for the Project.
CONCLUSION
Because the Project has remaining potentially significant impacts to air quality and energy, the 2023 SMND is improper under CEQA. Instead, SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare and circulate a subsequent EIR prior to further consideration of the Project.
Sincerely,
Brian B thym
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP