Attachment 2 CARE CA Appeal ApplicationGrounds of Appe — Thousand Oaks City Council, October 21, 2025

CDD:\460-20\cj\H:\COMMON\Forms_App's_Handouts_Templates\Planning\Planning Applications and Documents\Appeal PC Decision.doc 7/2006
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, California 91362-2903 (805) 449-2100 Printed on recycled paper.

APPLICATION FOR APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPELLANT INFORMATION*:

Name (person):

Company/Organization (if applicable):

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Phone: ( ) Email:

If appellant is not the applicant, state the basis for filing this appeal as an “aggrieved person.” *NOTE: IF THE APPELLANT is a Corporation, the name, address and title of all Officers shall accompany this application. If the appellant is a General Partner, the name and address of all General Partners shall accompany this application.

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:

Case #: Date of Decision:

Community Development Department Decision was to (check only one): Approve application Deny application
I REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
(Check only one.)
Approve the application subject to the conditions imposed by the Community Development Department.

Approve the application, but add, delete or change one or more conditions (please attach a separate sheet with the specific condition changes you are requesting).

Deny the application.

ATTACHMENT #2
Application for Appeal to City Council of a Planning Commission Decision

Page 2 ends

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE:
(If appeal requests changes to conditions imposed by the Community Development Department, justify each change – attach additional pages if necessary.)
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT:

Signature of Appellant Date

CERTIFICATION
(For Department Use Only)
The Community Development Department hereby certifies that the appeal and filing fee have been received as follow:

At (a.m./p.m.), on , 20 .

By (Staff Accepting Appeal) Filing Fee $
Name of Project Planner:

CDD:\460-20\cj\H:\COMMON\Forms_App's_Handouts_Templates\Planning\Planning Applications and Documents\Appeal PC Decision.doc (8/13)

6041-016acp
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

ISABEL TAHIR

Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
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
amarshall @adamsbroadwell.com

printed on recycled paper

September 16, 2025

Via Electronic Submission
Thousand Oaks City Council
c/o Adrienne Sosner, Sr. Community Development Technician Attn: Community Development Department
Public Counter
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard,
Thousand Oaks, California, 91362.

Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]

Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]

Re: Appeal of 9/8/2025 Planning Commission Approval of the Conejo Summit Project (2019-70439-DP; SCH No. 2022020269; Case Nos. 2022- 70771-EIR, 2019-70440-VTTM, 2019-70441-VTTM, 2019- 70439-DP, 2021- 71158-PTP, 2019-70442-USP, and 2019- 70443-LPC).

Dear Honorable City Council Members, Ms. Sosner, Mr. Kolwitz:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit this appeal of the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) Planning Commission approval of the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269; 2022-70771-EIR, 2019-70440-VTTM, 2019-70441-VTTM, 2019- 70439-DP, 2021-71158-PTP, 2019- 70442-USP, and 2019- 70443-LPC) (“Project”) at its September 8, 2025, meeting.

The Planning Commission’s determination included certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, a Development Permit, including modifications to maximum building height and setback from centerline of street, Protected Tree Permit (encroachment); and Uniform Sign Program.

This appeal is submitted in compliance with City Municipal Code procedures.

On September 15, 2025, the undersigned obtained a “certification from the [Community Development] department that an appeal is authorized and that all September 16, 2025

Page 2 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
information, documents, and maps required in connection with the appeal have been filed with the City.”1 On September 15, 2025, Community Development staff confirmed by email that an appealable decision was made on September 8, 2025 regarding the Conejo Project by the Planning Commission, and that “All information, documents, and maps required in connection with the appealable decision are posted on the City’s website for the Planning Commission’s public hearing held on September 8, 2025.”2

CARE CA hereby appeals all actions taken by the Planning Commission with regard to the Project at its September 8, 2025 meeting. The reasons for this appeal are set forth herein and described in greater detail in the attached comments, which document the City’s failure to comply with CEQA and land use laws. CARE CA submitted comments on the DEIR on January 10, 20253 during the public review period. CARE CA submitted additional comments on the FEIR and Staff Report to the Planning Commission on September 8, 2025.4 CARE CA’s FEIR comments identify the issues which remained unresolved prior to Project approval. We incorporate by reference the attached comments and exhibits, which are in the City’s record of proceedings for the Project.5

At the hearing, the Applicant’s consultant read into the record responses to CARE CA’s comments. These responses did not resolve any of the issues raised in CARE CA’s FEIR comments. Further, these responses mostly consisted of numerical references to responses in the FEIR, as opposed to substantive arguments that the decisionmakers could consider at the hearing. Thus, to the extent these responses influenced the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the Project, the Planning Commission did not exercise its independent judgment as required by CEQA, and the supplemental responses provided by the Applicant did not provide the City with substantial evidence to support Project approval.
6 1 Municipal Code Sec. 9-4.2808.
2 Attachment A: 9/15/25 Email from S. Kolwitz to ABJC re Appeal of PC's Approval of Conejo Summit Project.
3 Letter from Adams Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo (“ABJC”) to City re: Preliminary Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269) (January 10, 2025), included in the FEIR.
4 Attachment B: Letter from Adams Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo to City re: Agenda Item 7.A – Comments on the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269) (September 8, 2025). 5 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceedings on the Project. Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121,
6 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15084.

September 16, 2025

Page 3 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
I. Standing to Appeal and Statement of Interest

CARE CA has standing to appeal the Project approvals. Regarding the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (“TOMC”) provides that “any interested party affected by a decision to conditionally approve, or disapprove a tentative map may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Council, which shall hold a public hearing and make a decision thereon.”7

Regarding the Project’s Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program, the TOMC provides that Planning Commission determinations regarding permits and administrative determinations “rendered pursuant to Section 9-4.2804 or Section 9-

4.2805 of this article” may be appealed to the City Council. 8 Development permits
are listed under Section 9-4.2804, so may be appealed. Appeals of these determinations may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision within ten days of the Planning Commission’s decision.9 The Uniform Sign Program was approved pursuant to findings in Section 9-4.2803 of the TMOC, so would constitute an appealable determination under Section 9-4.2804 or Section 9-4.2805.10

Regarding the Project’s Protected Tree Permit, “the Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the same provisions of Article 28.” These provisions are the same as applicable to the appeal of the Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program.11

CARE CA is a non-profit organization which advocates for a sustainable construction industry and protecting the environment and health of its communities’ workforces. CARE CA and its individual and labor organization members are interested persons who would be adversely affected by the Planning Commission’s determinations. CARE CA and its members may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Thousand Oaks residents Paul Valdez, Michael Kershaw, Jacob Diegal, and George Valdez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Thousand Oaks.

7 TOMC Section 9-3.702(a)(3).
8 Sec. 9-4.2807. Appeals of administrative decisions to the Planning Commission ; Sec. 9-4.2808 (a) (“After the Commission has rendered a decision, and except as provided otherwise in Section 9-

4.1809 of this chapter, an appeal to the Council may be taken”). 9 TOMC, Section 9-4.2808.
10 City of Thousand Oaks, September 8, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, Item 7A, Res.

No. XX-2025 PC, pg. 48-52.
11 Sec. 9-4.2807; Sec. 9-4.2808.

September 16, 2025

Page 4 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Thousand Oaks and surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA 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 the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

CARE CA’s appeal is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Therefore, CARE CA has standing to appeal the Planning Commissions determinations.

I. Reasons for Appeal

A. The FEIR Does Not Meet CEQA’s Requirements and Must Be Recirculated

CARE CA’s September 8, 2025, comments to the Planning Commission demonstrated that the FEIR certified by the Planning Commission is flawed and does not comply with the requirements of CEQA.
12 As detailed in Attachment B, the
FEIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, and evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project may result in significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), energy, noise, and cumulative impacts.

The Project would have significant impacts on air quality: the Project’s significant emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (“ROG”) and Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) remain unmitigated. These emissions exceed the City’s significance standards by 76 lbs/day, but the City failed to implement all feasible onsite

12 Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.

September 16, 2025

Page 5 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
mitigation measures to reduce this impact. CARE CA and its experts have proposed numerous and commonplace measures that would feasibly and effectively reduce emissions. Further, CARE CA’s comments have demonstrated that the City’s impact fee would not clearly result in emissions reductions fully mitigating the Project’s impacts.

Further, the Project failed to provide electric vehicle (“EV”) capable spaces meeting Title 24 CALGreen standards. Additional provision of EV capable spaces is necessary to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts. The FEIR also underestimated emissions from truck trips (when site-specific, Ventura County data is applied). The FEIR also discounted emissions from future use of backup generators. Regarding noise, the FEIR fails to validate its traffic noise model against actual site-specific measurements. And regarding public utilities, the FEIR failed to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysis. As a result of these shortcomings, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions and fails to properly mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Thus, the FEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements.

The FEIR was improperly certified because CEQA requires recirculation of the EIR. Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added after the DEIR is circulated for public review but before certification of the FEIR.
13 Significant new information can include changes in the project or the environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information, information about new or more severe impacts, new information about mitigation measures, the availability project alternatives or mitigation that is considerably different from others previously analyzed that would lessen significant environmental impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or where the DEIR “was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”
14 Here, the DEIR lacked basic analysis
and discussion of the Project’s air quality, GHG, noise, public utilities, and cumulative impacts that are required by CEQA. Recirculation of the EIR is necessary to correct these deficiencies.

CARE CA requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s certification of the FEIR and all other Project entitlements. The FEIR’s flaws must be corrected in a recirculated EIR before the Project’s underlying entitlements can be reconsidered for approval.

13 14 CCR §15088.5(a).
14 14 CCR §15088.5(a)(1)-(4); Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.

September 16, 2025

Page 6 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
B. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Was
Unsupported by the Record

The Subdivision Map Act and Section 9-3.702 of the TOMC require the City to deny approval of the Project’s Vesting Tentative Tract Maps if the Project would result in significant environmental or public health impacts. Government Code, section 66474, provides:

A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:

(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine September 16, 2025

Page 7 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.15

The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make these findings. The Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and result in substantial environmental damage for the reasons summarized in herein and in CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR (Attachment B).

CARE CA requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of these permits. The FEIR’s flaws must be corrected in a recirculated EIR before the City can make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s permits.

C. Approval of the Project’s Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program Was Unsupported by the Record

The Planning Commission made findings pursuant to Section 9-4.2803 of the TOMC in order to approve the Project’s Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program.
16 Section 9-4.2803 of the TOMC provides that the City must find:

(1) The project is consistent with the Thousand Oaks General Plan and any applicable specific plan or redevelopment plan;
(2) The project complies with all applicable laws, regulations and policies, including the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code;
(3) The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
(4) The project has been reviewed in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act;
(5) The proposed use at the proposed location will be compatible with land uses in the vicinity.

The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make these findings. The Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and be inconsistent with CEQA for the reasons summarized in herein and in CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR.

15 See TOM, Section 9-3.702.
16 City of Thousand Oaks, September 8, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, Item 7A, Res.

No. XX-2025 PC.

September 16, 2025

Page 8 ends

6041-016acp

printed on recycled paper
CARE CA requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of these permits. The FEIR’s flaws must be corrected in a recirculated EIR before the City can make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s permits.

II. CONCLUSION

CARE CA respectfully requests that the City set a hearing on this appeal, and that the City Council uphold this appeal and vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. The EIR must then be revised and recirculated to comply with CEQA before the Project’s entitlements and permits are considered for approval.

Sincerely,

Christina M. Caro
Aidan P. Marshall

Attachments
APM:acp

ATTACHMENT A
1 Christina Caro
From: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:06 AM
To: Aidan P. Marshall
Cc: Christina Caro; Sheila M. Sannadan; Noel Doran; Stephen Kearns; Adrienne Sosner Subject: RE: Appeal of PC's Approval of Conejo Summit Project PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.

Good Morning Aidan,
Thank you for reaching out to us regarding the Appeals process.

This email serves as the cerƟﬁcaƟon from the Community Development Department that an appealable decision has been made by the Planning Commission. All informaƟon, documents, and maps required in connecƟon with the appealable decision are posted on the City’s website for the Planning Commission’s public hearing held on September 8, 2025: hƩps://toaks.primegov.com/public/portal

The instrucƟons for ﬁling an appeal in the document you shared with us is valid. Please note, the document states “This applicaƟon package is to be submiƩed in person at the Community Development Department public counter, located at 2100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks, California, 91362.” While we recommend Appeal applicaƟons to be submiƩed in person, the City has been moving to an electronic submiƩal, and we can coordinate an electronic submiƩal.

To ﬁle an appeal, we provide this informaƟon to you:

1. What is the appeal deadline for the project (date and Ɵme)? The Appeal must be ﬁled on or before September 18 at 5:00pm (see response to quesƟon 5). The Appeal applicaƟon is available on our website:
hƩps://toaks.gov/planning-guides Speciﬁcally, here’s a direct link to the applicaƟon to Appeal a Planning Commission Decision:
hƩps://toaks.gov/corecode/storage/uber_resource/uploaded_pdfs/Appeal%20PC%20Decision_1724261424. pdf

2. What is the appeal fee for the project? The Appeal fee is $1,621.00 as adopted in our Planning Division ApplicaƟon Fees (7/1/2025 - 6/30/2027) posted on our website:
hƩps://toaks.gov/corecode/storage/uber_resource/uploaded_pdfs/Planning%20User%20Fees%20FY%20202 5-2027_FOR%20PRINT_1752256270.pdf

3. Can the appeal fee be paid online with a credit card? If not, can the appeal fee be paid with a check? Yes, the Appeal fee can be paid online, but only aŌer the Appeal applicaƟon has been ﬁled (see response to quesƟon 5). We accept Visa or Mastercard (convenience fees apply) and by Echeck (no convenience fees). We do not accept payment over the phone. Payment must be received and cleared before the close of the Appeal period.

4. If payable with a check, who should the check be made out to? Checks are to be made out to the “City of Thousand Oaks”.

5. Can the appeal be emailed/submiƩed electronically, or must the appeal be mailed? Yes, an Appeal applicaƟon can be submiƩed by email or mail. The Appeal applicaƟon must be received by the City with enough Ɵme for the payment to be processed. In pracƟce, this means the Appeal applicaƟon needs 2 to arrive at least one business day before the close of the Appeal period. Upon receiving an Appeal applicaƟon that has been emailed or mailed to the City, we create an invoice and forward the invoice to the email address idenƟﬁed in the Appeal applicaƟon. The invoice includes a link to allow payment to be paid online.

We recommend Appeal applicaƟons to be submiƩed in person, as payment can be processed during their visit.

6. If the appeal must be mailed, what is the correct mailing address and who is the contact person to mail the appeal should be mailed? Appeal applicaƟons are not required to be mailed, but if the Appeal applicaƟon is mailed, it must be received with enough Ɵme to process the payment (see response to quesƟon 5). If the Appeal applicaƟon and check is being submiƩed by mail, the package must be sent to City of Thousand Oaks, c/o Adrienne Sosner, Sr. Community Development Technician, 2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362.

We do not accept deliveries of mail, UPS or FedEx over the weekend or on days when City Hall is closed.

During the Appeal period, City Hall is closed September 12-14.

If you have any addiƟonal quesƟons, please send them to both Adrienne Sosner and me. Adrienne is copied to this email and available at 805-449-2536.

As always, please let us know if you have any addiƟonal quesƟons.

Sincerely,
ScoƩ

Scott Kolwitz | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks

From: Aidan P. Marshall <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Caro <[email protected]>; Sheila M. Sannadan <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal of PC's Approval of Conejo Summit Project

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

3 Good afternoon,

On behalf of CARE CA, I am interested in ﬁling an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269; Case Nos. 2022-70771, 2019-70440, 2019-70441, 2019-704392021-71158, 2019-70442) (“Project”) at its September 8, 2025, meeting. The Municipal Code provides that prior to and as a prerequisite of ﬁling a notice of appeal, an appellant must “obtain a certiﬁcation from the department that an appeal is authorized and that all information, documents, and maps required in connection with the appeal have been ﬁled with the City.” Municipal Code Sec. 9-4.2808. Please advise how we can obtain this certiﬁcation.

Additionally, please conﬁrm that these instructions for ﬁling an appeal are still valid:
https://toaks.gov/corecode/storage/uber_resource/uploaded_pdfs/Appeal%20PC%20Decision_1724261424.pdf

Thank you for your assistance.

Best,
Aidan

Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 589-1660
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT B

6041-014acp
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

ISABEL TAHIR

Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
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
amarshall @adamsbroadwell.com

printed on recycled paper

September 8, 2025

Via Email and Hand Delivery
Attn: Mic Farris, Chair
Attn: Marcella Tyler Ketelhut, Vice Chair
Attn: Kara Buss, Commissioner
Attn: Don Lanson, Commissioner
Attn: Sharon McMahon, Commissioner
City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]

Via Email Only
Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]

Re: Agenda Item 7.A – Comments on the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269)

Dear Chairman Farris, Vice Chair Ketelhut, Commissioner Lanson, Commissioner McMahon, and Mr. Kolwitz:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit these comments on the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2022020269) (“Project”), proposed by Thousand Oaks Master LLC (“Applicant”) in the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”). The Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), vesting tentative tract maps, development permit, and other permits will be considered at the September 8, 2025, Planning Commission meeting as Agenda Item 7.A.

CARE CA’s review of the FEIR and staff report demonstrates that the City has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or applicable land use laws. The Project continues to have significant, unmitigated air quality, health risk, noise, and energy impacts that the FEIR fails to disclose or September 8, 2025

Page 2 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
mitigate to the greatest extent feasible. CARE CA respectfully asks that the Planning Commission continue this hearing and remand the Project to City staff to revise and recirculate the EIR before bringing the Project back for further consideration.

CARE CA submitted comments on the DEIR, accompanied by expert comments, showing that the DEIR failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA by failing to accurately disclose and mitigate potentially significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), energy, noise, and cumulative impacts. The Final EIR contains responses to CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR. However, the responses fail to resolve the major flaws CARE CA and its experts identified in the DEIR. We reviewed the FEIR with the assistance of air quality expert Dr. James Clark
1 and noise expert Jack Meighan.2

In summary, the Project’s significant emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (“ROG”) and Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) remain unmitigated. These emissions exceed the City’s significance standards by 76 lbs/day, but the City failed to implement all feasible onsite mitigation measures to reduce this impact. CARE CA and its experts have proposed numerous and commonplace measures that would feasibly and effectively reduce emissions. Further, these comments demonstrate that the impact fee would not clearly result in emissions reductions fully mitigating the Project’s impacts. The FEIR itself acknowledges that onsite measures should be implemented before resorting to payment of an impact fee. 3 The EIR must be
revised to require all feasible onsite mitigation.

These comments also demonstrate that the Project fails to provide electric vehicle (“EV”) capable spaces meeting Title 24 CALGreen standards. These comments also present new evidence showing that the FEIR greatly underestimates emissions from truck trips (when site-specific, Ventura County data is applied). The FEIR also continues to incorrectly discount emissions from future use of backup generators. Regarding noise, the FEIR still fails to validate its traffic noise model against actual site-specific measurements. Mr. Meighan explains that the FEIR’s noise study is thus still unsupported by substantial evidence. And regarding public utilities, the FEIR still fails to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysis. As a result of these shortcomings, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions and fails to properly mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

1 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 Mr. Meighan’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3 FEIR, pg. 9-618.

September 8, 2025

Page 3 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added after the DEIR is circulated for public review but before certification of the FEIR.4 Significant new information can include changes in the project or the environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information, information about new or more severe impacts, new information about mitigation measures, the availability project alternatives or mitigation that is considerably different from others previously analyzed that would lessen significant environmental impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or where the DEIR “was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”5 Here, the DEIR lacked basic analysis and discussion of the Project’s air quality, GHG, noise, public utilities, and cumulative impacts that are required by CEQA. Recirculation of the EIR is necessary to correct these deficiencies.

The Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to make the requisite findings to approve the Project. The draft resolution incorrectly concludes that the FEIR complies with CEQA.
6 This finding is unsupported by evidence in the record due to the major flaws in the Project’s environmental review. And due to the Project’s significant environmental and public health impacts, the Commission cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s vesting tentative tract map under the Subdivision Map Act.7

CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to remand the Project to City staff to revise and recirculate the EIR to comply with CEQA before any further action is taken on the Project. CARE CA reserves the right to provide supplemental comments at any and all later proceedings related to this Project. 8 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

CARE CA 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 the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Thousand Oaks residents Paul Valdez, Michael Kershaw, Jacob Diegal, and George Valdez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern

4 14 CCR §15088.5(a).
5 14 CCR §15088.5(a)(1)-(4); Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043.
6 Staff Report, Res. No. XX-2025 PC, pg. 5.
7 Government Code, section 66474.
8 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.

App. 4th 1109, 1121.

September 8, 2025

Page 4 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Thousand Oaks.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Thousand Oaks and surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

II. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

A. The Project’s Significant Air Quality Impacts Are Not Fully Mitigated

The DEIR found that the Project would result in significant emissions of ROG and NOx during Project operations, but would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by payment of an impact fee set forth in MM-AQ-4. 9 CARE CA’s
comments on the DEIR explained that MM-AQ-4 violates CEQA because (1) it improperly calls for an impact fee to mitigate the Project’s impacts before exhausting all feasible onsite measures, (2) there is no evidence in the record that the impact fee would fully mitigate the Project’s impacts, and (3) the measure is vague and impermissibly defers mitigation. The FEIR fails to adequately address these issues and fails to support its analysis with substantial evidence.

9 DEIR, pg. 3.2-29.

September 8, 2025

Page 5 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper

1. The City Has Not Implemented All Feasible Onsite
Mitigation

To CARE CA’s first point, the FEIR acknowledges that “VCAPCD recommends that this mitigation measure [payment of the impact fee] be implemented only after all feasible area and operational mitigation measures have been applied to the development project, and project emissions are still considered significant.”
10 But the FEIR claims that “the Project has implemented all feasible area and operational mitigation measures suggested by the VCAPCD… including onsite bicycle lockers, EV charging stations, exceeding Title 24 requirements, and electric charging infrastructure for bicycles and scooters.” 11 This statement is
unsupported.

The FEIR fails to evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary Tier 1 or 2 standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. Tier 2 standards are more stringent than Tier 1 standards, and both exceed mandatory Title 24 requirements.

These standards include measures that would reduce operational emissions.

CALGreen Sections A5.106.5.1.1 and A5.106.5.1.2 call for increased number of designated parking spaces for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles. Tier 1 standards require 35% of spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles, and Tier 2 standards require 50%. The FEIR fails to analyze the feasibility of meeting either of these standards, which would reduce mobile source emissions.

CalGreen’s Nonresidential Mandatory Standards require projects with over 201 total parking spaces to provide 20% as EV capable spaces. 12 CALGreen’s
Voluntary Standards, in Section A5.106.5.3, call for an increased number of EV capable spaces. The number of EV capable spaces required depends on the total number of spaces.13 Tier 1 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 30% EV capable spaces, and Tier 2 standards require 45% to be EV capable.14 The Project currently proposes 15.2% of the total spaces as EV capable spaces (249 of 1,633).15 This percentage is not only less than the Tier 1 or Tier 2 voluntary standards, but does not appear to meet the mandatory 20%

10 FEIR, pg. 9-618.
11 FEIR, pg. 9-618, 19.
12 CALGreen, Table 5.106.5.3.1
13 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1
14 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2.
15 DEIR, pg. ES-41, 3.5-8.

September 8, 2025

Page 6 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
standard. The FEIR fails to demonstrate that increasing this percentage to meet Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards would be infeasible. And the FEIR does not contradict VCAPCD’s recommendation that increased EV charging infrastructure would reduce emissions.16

CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.17 Reducing energy consumption would reduce the Project’s significant emissions of criteria air pollutants. This is because the FEIR states that the Project can select Southern California Edison (“SCE”) as its energy provider, which only used 31.4% renewable energy sources in 2021.
18 SCE’s energy sources generate NOx.19 Thus, reductions in energy consumption would help reduce the Project’s emissions. The FEIR fails to implement this measure to reduce emissions. The FEIR also fails to require the Project to select Clean Power Alliance (“CPA”) as its electricity provider, and select its 100% Green Power program, which is 100% renewable energy. This measure would reduce emissions from operational electricity usage.

CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by requiring plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 12%, in the case of Tier 1 standards, and 20%, in the case of Tier 2. 20 Reducing water consumption would reduce energy consumption.21 The FEIR also fails to consider this measure.

The FEIR fails to require increased onsite photovoltaic systems and energy storage facilities in excess of regulatory requirements. Many aspects of the 49.57- net-acre Project site could support solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar photovoltaics. Solar canopies over a portion or all of the 1,633- stall surface parking lot could offset operational energy consumption, but this measure is not implemented.

16 VCAPCD, Letter re Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Conejo Summit Project (RMA 22-004-1) (March 20, 2023).
17 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2.
18 DEIR, pg. 3.5-2.
19 https://download.edison.com/406/files/202410/eix-2024-esg-quantitative- section.pdf?Signature=dQP768QrjAcXlXMYwr%2Fu7aLWv48%3D&Expires=1757291777&AWSAcce ssKeyId=AKIATACLJRQCT2IBV7MN&versionId=Fl8W1bOxoGGsI.Bit2T0_QfBClIzbXfF&response - content-disposition=attachment.
20 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2.
21 USEPA, Water and Energy Efficiency at Utilities and in the Home – Make the Drops-to-Watts Connection, https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/water-and- energy-efficiency-utilities-and-
home_.html#:~:text=Make%20the%20Drops%2Dto%2DWatts,can%20significantly%20reduce%20ope rating%20costs; https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts.

September 8, 2025

Page 7 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
The FEIR also fails to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of shortening permissible idling times for construction equipment and delivery trucks accessing the Project site. The FEIR states that the Project would comply with regulations requiring a five-minute maximum idling time,22 but fails to consider a two-minute idling time for construction equipment and trucks.23 Reducing idling times would reduce mobile source emissions.24

In sum, the FEIR fails to analyze feasible onsite air quality mitigation measures. This conflicts with VCAPCD guidance and violates CEQA.

2. The FEIR is Internally Inconsistent Regarding How
MM-AQ-4 Would Be Applied

The FEIR states that payment of an impact fee, pursuant to MM-AQ-4, would “fully mitigate the excess NOx and ROG emissions over the significance threshold.”
25 MM-AQ-4, as written in the MMRP, states that “[t]he fees shall be calculated based on the unit cost for ROG and NOx, in effect at the time a building permit is issued.”
26 In the DEIR, MM-AQ-4 included footnotes stating that the unit costs for ROG and NOx are $5.18 and $7.54 per pound in January 2000 dollars, respectively.27 But in the MMRP, these footnotes are omitted. The FEIR also states that “[t]he Draft EIR does not claim that impact fees of $5.18 per pound of ROG in January 2000 dollars and $7.54 per pound of NOx in January 2000 dollars would fully mitigate the Project’s impacts.”
28 Thus, is it unclear how the unit costs for
ROG and NOx will be calculated. The lack of clarity regarding how the unit cost for ROG and NOx will be calculated violates CEQA.
29 3. The TDM Fund Fee is Outdated and Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR demonstrated that there is no evidence in the record that the amount of fees that would be collected pursuant to MM-AQ-4 would be sufficient to construct TDM improvements that would achieve the

22 DEIR, pg. 3.2-33
23 State of California Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022), pg. 8, 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 24 DEIR, pg. 3.5-10.
25 FEIR, pg. 9-619.
26 FEIR, pg. 11-7.
27 DEIR, pg. 3.2-34.
28 FEIR, pg. 9-619.
29 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4
September 8, 2025

Page 8 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
requisite emissions reductions (76 lbs/day). The FEIR acknowledges that the amount of fees that would be collected under MM-AQ-4 are based on a calculation from the 2003 Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (“AQAG”).30 But the VCAPCD itself commented on the Notice of Preparation that the mitigation measures in the ACAG are outdated, specifically highlighting TDM Fund fees:

We note that the AQAG has not been updated since 2003 and the recommended list of mitigation measures in the AQAG are also limited and outdated… The recommended list of mitigation measures in the AQAG are also limited and outdated. There are currently other onsite mitigation options, rather than contributing to an off-site TDM Fund Mitigation, such as installing bicycle lockers, EV charging stations, energy standards exceeding Title 24, etc.
31 As explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, the FEIR fails to include up-to-date evidence demonstrating that its impact fees would fully mitigate the Project’s emissions. Thus, the impact fees required by MM-AQ-4 are not supported by substantial evidence.

The FEIR responds, “[r]egarding the VCAPCD NOP comment letter, the VCAPCD does not recommend against implementation of the TDM fee – on the contrary, the VCAPCD suggests other onsite mitigation measures be considered first.”
32 This is incorrect. The VCAPCD letter does not recommend implementation of a TDM fee in any way. There is no mention in the letter of implementing the fee after first considering onsite mitigation measures.

The FEIR also lists examples of the City’s TDM projects funded by impact fees to suggest that MM-AQ-4 constitutes effective mitigation. 33 This response does
not address whether this Project’s payment of fees would be sufficient to fund projects that would reduce emissions by 76 lbs/day. Further, some of the examples of projects funded by the TDM impact fees would not constitute effective mitigation.

For example, the “Thousand Oaks Transit Holiday Shoppers’ Shuttle Bus – Pilot Program (1996)” was shuttered after one month due to low ridership.34 If the

30 FEIR, pg. 9-619.
31 VCAPCD, Letter re Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Conejo Summit Project (RMA 22-004-1) (March 20, 2023).
32 FEIR, pg. 9-618.
33 FEIR, pg. 9-619.
34 LA Times, Shopper’s Shuttle Will Halt Due to Low Ridership, December 28, 1996, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-28-me-13299-story.html (“On several weekdays, total ridership for the shuttle’s eight hours of operation was in the single digits. On Dec. 9, only two people boarded the bus all day… Even on its busiest day when 46 passengers rode the bus, ridership September 8, 2025

Page 9 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
Project’s fees were spent on a similar TDM measure, the Project’s impacts would not be mitigated.

In sum, the FEIR’s mitigation still lacks scientific support. The FEIR lacks substantial evidence to claim that MM-AQ-4 would reduce emissions to a less than significant level.

4. MM-AQ-4 Constitutes Improperly Deferred Mitigation

As explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, MM-AQ-4 constitutes improperly deferred mitigation in violation of CEQA. Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that details of a mitigation measure may be developed after project approval when:

it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.

Here, MM-AQ-4 provides that impact fees would be spent on a TDM mitigation program, but fails to identify specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve. The measure provides that these fees must be committed to a program within five years, but that does not establish emissions reductions the mitigation will achieve. The measure provides that “[f]unds shall not be used for traffic engineering projects,” but this provision does not establish emissions reductions standards for qualifying projects. MM-AQ-4 fails to require that the funds be spent in a way that would reduce emissions by 76 lbs/day.

The FEIR argues that “the City would have the discretion to put the funds to a transportation project or program where they can get the best reduction of ROG and NOx emissions within five years.”
35 Expression of the City’s goal to use the
funds in the most effective way is not a specific performance standard that meets CEQA’s requirements. This is the same legal flaw as in Gray v. County of Madera, where the Fifth District Court of Appeal explained:

was far below the minimum 12 riders per hour the City Council had set as a benchmark to keep the shuttle for an additional two months.”).
35 FEIR, pg. 9-916.

September 8, 2025

Page 10 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
While we generally agree that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to mitigation and to specific performance standards, we conclude that here the County has not committed itself to a specific performance standard.

Instead, the County has committed itself to a specific mitigation goal – the replacement of water lost by neighboring landowners because of mine operations. However, this goal is not a specific performance standard. 36 MM-AQ-4 must be revised to require specific emissions reductions equaling or exceeding 76 lbs/day. The methodology by which the reductions are calculated must be included in the mitigation measure. MM-AQ-4 must also require that the Applicant pay additional fees should a TDM program funded by the Project’s fees fail to result in the required emissions reductions. For example, Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreements (“VERA”) with the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) provide:

In the event the District is unable to achieve the required reductions to fully mitigate the Project Construction and Operation Criteria Pollutant Emissions with the Air Quality Mitigation Funds provided by Developer, District shall provide Developer a written statement of the amount of emission reductions that have been achieved to date pursuant to this Agreement. Within ninety (90) days, Developer shall submit to District additional Air Quality Mitigation Funds in accordance with Section 3 (Construction and Operation Emission Reduction Cost per Ton), thereby ensuring the required reductions to mitigate the Project Construction and Operation Criteria Pollutant Emissions.
37 In implementing a VERA, the SJVAPCD verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. 38 MM-AQ-4 lacks these necessary features.

In sum, MM-AQ-4 remains improperly deferred mitigation in violation of CEQA.

36 Gray v County of Madera (2008) 167 CA4th 1099, 1122. [emphasis added]. 37 Letter from SJVACPD to SJVUAPCD Governing Board re: Item Number 11: Approve Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement With Lost Hills Environmental, LLC To Mitigate Air Quality Impacts (April 17, 2025), available at https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/zjwlsflz/item-11_-approve- voluntary-emission-reduction-agreement-with-lost-hills-env.pdf 38 https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/1gxhiigw/item-11_approve-voluntary-emission-reduction- agreement.pdf.

September 8, 2025

Page 11 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
B. The Project Fails to Meet Title 24 Requirements

CalGreen’s Nonresidential Mandatory Standards require projects with over 201 total parking spaces to provide 20% as EV capable spaces.39 This requirement is contained in Table 5.106.5.3.1, shown below:

The Project currently proposes 15.2% of the total spaces as EV capable spaces (249 of 1,633).40 This percentage does not appear to meet the mandatory 20% standard (326 EV capable spaces). Although a project can reduce the total number of EV capable spaces by installing excess DCFC chargers, the 84 total chargers committed to currently would not achieve the necessary reduction. 41 This inconsistency with Title 24 standards constitutes a “[c]onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency,” a significant impact under CEQA.
42 This inconsistency must be corrected in a
recirculated EIR.

39 CALGreen, Table 5.106.5.3.1
40 DEIR, pg. ES-41, 3.5-8; Res. No. XX-2025 PC, pg. 29
41 CALGreen, Section 5.106.5.3.2.1
42 DEIR, pg. 3.5-16.

September 8, 2025

Page 12 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
C. The Project’s Air Quality, GHG, and Health Risk Impacts Are Underestimated

1. The FEIR Underestimates Emissions from Warehouse
Truck Trips

CARE CA previously explained that the DEIR underestimates the distances of the truck trips associated with the Project’s warehouse uses, which consequently underestimates the Project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants, GHGs, and Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”). The FEIR responds that the analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which utilizes the average trip length for light-heavy (15.3- miles), medium-heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy-heavy trucks (39.9-miles).43 These average trip lengths are of truck activities within the entire South Coast Air Basin.44 Dr. Clark analyzed truck trip data in Ventura County and found that trip lengths were far greater than assumed in the FEIR.45 Data in California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emission Factor (EMFAC) inventory shows that the average trip length for medium duty trucks within the County is 48 miles (20 percent greater than assumed in the FEIR).46 And the average trip length for heavy duty tractor trailers is 82 miles, which is more than twice the amount assumed in the FEIR.47 This demonstrates that the FEIR’s reliance on air basin-wide averages is unsupported by substantial evidence.

As explained in CARE CA’s prior comments and by Dr. Clark, this underestimate of truck trip length results in underestimated emissions from those trucks. The FEIR’s analyses of criteria air pollutants, GHGs, and TACs are unsupported by substantial evidence. Further, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to conclude that its current mitigation would fully reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The FEIR must be revised.

2. The FEIR Fails to Analyze Impacts Associated with
Emergency Generators

CARE CA’s prior comments demonstrate that it is reasonably foreseeable that emergency generators would be used at some point in the Project’s operations, and that CEQA requires analysis of all reasonably foreseeable components of the

43 FEIR, pg. 9-622.
44 WAIRE Implementation Guidelines, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/planning/fbmsm-docs/waire-implementation-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=12, pg. 16. 45 Clark Comments, pg. 11.
46 Id.
47 Id.

September 8, 2025

Page 13 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
Project.48 The FEIR responds that “[n]either the Project Description nor the associated plan materials include emergency backup generators as the applicant does not propose them.”49 This statement is inaccurate. The DEIR itself states:
“[u]nder operations (long-term), the proposed Project would result in an increase in emissions primarily due to motor vehicle trips and onsite stationary sources (such as the emergency backup generators).”50 Further, condition of approval number 71 references potential future emergency generators.51 Regardless of this internal inconsistency, even if the Applicant does not immediately propose emergency generators as part of the Project, the FEIR must analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Project. And CARE CA demonstrated that the use of backup generators by the Project’s end users is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.

The FEIR also argues: “[i]f, in the future, a property owner/tenant proposes a back-up energy source, they would apply for associated entitlements and permits in the future and that request would be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations that exist at that point in the future.”
52 This approach violates CEQA
because it would piecemeal environmental review of the Project’s reasonably foreseeable emissions.

D. The FEIR Fails to Disclose Total Health Risks from Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants

The FEIR calculates that the mitigated health risk impacts for off-site receptors would be less than significant during construction, interim operations, and full operations. The FEIR estimates the cancer risks during these phases to be

4.8 in one million for exposure beginning during construction, 4.8 in one million for exposure beginning during interim operations, and 6.4 in one million for exposure beginning during full operations.
53 The FEIR finds that these would not
individually exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold.

48 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 398; East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226; see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449- 50. 49 FEIR, pg. 9-615.
50 DEIR, pg. 3.2-21
51 “Emergency Power – If needed in the future, emergency power systems are to be provided by non - diesel fuel systems unless such systems are shown to be financially and/or physically infeasible to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.” 52 53 Clark Comments, pg. 8.

September 8, 2025

Page 14 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
But the FEIR’s HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk resulting from Project construction, interim operations, and full operations together.

According to Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.”54 Dr. Clark observes that the FEIR’s HRA fails to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation.55 Thus, the FEIR fails to disclose the lifetime cancer risk of residents living near the Project site and along the truck route. This lack of analysis violates CEQA’s informational standards and requirement that an EIR’s conclusions be supported by substantial evidence.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.
56 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.57 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.58 By failing to analyze the lifetime health impacts of the entire Project (which includes construction and operational phases) on long-term residents living near the Project, the City fails to meet the aforementioned legal standards.

The FEIR fails as an informational document because omits a key analysis necessary to understand the real-world health impacts of the Project. The FEIR is unsupported by substantial evidence because it concludes that health risk impacts would be less than significant without fully analyzing the impact. The FEIR must be revised.

E. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts

An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.” 59 This
determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current

54 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf pg. 8-4. 55 Clark Comments, pg. 9.
56 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d).
57 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 58 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 59 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).

September 8, 2025

Page 15 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”60 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”
61 1. The FEIR’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Fails to Comply with CEQA

The FEIR fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions. The FEIR asserts that any exceedance of a project-level threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively- considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable project- level thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.62 The FEIR concludes that this Project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less-than- significant because they would not exceed the project-level thresholds.63 This approach is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with existing and proposed development near Project site. 64 The FEIR’s approach has been rejected by the courts for failing to comply with CEQA’s requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are “cumulatively considerable.”
65 The leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.66 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4-megawatt coal- fired cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM
10 and ozone, the city failed to
incorporate mitigation for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”67 The city reasoned that, because the project’s air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality

60 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
61 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
62 DEIR, pg. 3.2-40.
63 Id.
64 DEIR, pg. 3-3, Table 3-1.
65 PRC § 21083(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15130; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.

App. 3d 692, 719-21.
66 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 67 Kings County, supra, at 719.

September 8, 2025

Page 16 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
problems, that this necessarily rendered the project’s “incremental contribution” minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it “contrary to the intent of CEQA,” and that “[t]he EIR improperly focused upon the individual project’s relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.”68

The FEIR’s analysis is similarly flawed because it improperly focuses upon the individual project’s relative effects and omits facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality. For example, the FEIR does not evaluate the significance of the combined emissions from construction of the Project and other industrial projects listed in Table 3-1 of the DEIR.
69 The FEIR also fails to analyze the combined emissions from mobile sources generated by the cumulative projects’ operations. These combined emissions may result in significant air quality and health risks. These potentially significant cumulative health risks are unanalyzed in the FEIR, in violation of CEQA and the principles articulated in Kings County.

The approach used in the DEIR also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA. 70 With
respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”71

68 Id. at 721; see also People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case- documents/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf (“The MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project. Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community”) 69 DEIR, pg. 3-3, Table 3-1.
70 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 71 Id., pg. 7.

September 8, 2025

Page 17 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper

2. The FEIR’s Cumulative Health Risk Analysis Fails to
Comply with CEQA

The FEIR also fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative health risk impacts from exposure to TACs. The FEIR reasons that the Project’s individual emissions would not result in a significant impact (exceeding a 10 in one million cancer risk), and “[r]elated projects that are not exempt from CEQA that generate TAC emissions would also need to evaluate emissions with respect to the applicable thresholds and implement mitigation measures as applicable.” 72 This analysis
violates CEQA for the same reason as does the FEIR’s cumulative air quality analysis: the FEIR omits facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this Project and others would have on public health. The Project is located in the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area, which contains many industrial and commercial developments generating truck trips. Truck trips from industrial development in the area generates TACs that impact public health, such as by increasing cancer risks to sensitive receptors near the truck routes.73 The FEIR violates CEQA by failing to analyze the Project’s combined impacts with these projects.

Although the Project site is located in VCAPCD’s jurisdiction, draft guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) instructs how an agency can evaluate cumulative health risk impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA.
74 SCAQMD’s November 6, 2024, Working Group’s draft cumulative impacts guidance recommends that agencies lower the cancer risk significance threshold to reflect existing pollution burden.75 The draft SCAQMD protocols lower the cancer risk threshold from 10 in one million if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.76 These factors include (1) MATES excess cancer risk, (2) if there are 951 daily heavy-duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route, and (3) if the Project is located in a SB 535 disadvantaged community or an AB 617 community. Although the protocols have not been formally adopted, SCAQMD comments on similar industrial projects recommend that the draft protocols be

72 DEIR, pg. 3.2-41.
73 Clark Comments, pg. 8.
74 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects, November 6, 2024, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13; see SCAQMD, Analyzing Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics in CEQA Documents, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development- (new).
75 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new); https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13.
76 Id.

September 8, 2025

Page 18 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
applied.77 The FEIR must be revised to apply a methodology that evaluates cumulative health risk impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA.

F. The FEIR’s Noise Analysis is Still Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

CARE CA previously demonstrated that the DEIR failed to accurately establish the environmental setting. Mr. Meighan explained that the DEIR failed to conduct validation measurements for its traffic noise model and improperly relied on short-term ambient noise measurements. These flaws completely undermine the FEIR’s noise analysis because there is a major discrepancy between measured noise levels and the noise levels assumed in the traffic model.78 These flaws are not resolved in the FEIR.

Mr. Meighan reviewed the FEIR and notes that it still fails to validate its traffic noise model.79 As explained in CARE CA’s original comments, without validation, the FEIR’s traffic noise analysis cannot be demonstrated to reflect site- specific impacts.80 The FEIR’s failure to demonstrate that the analysis is site- specific is a failure to support its analysis with substantial evidence.

Regarding the FEIR’s reliance on short-term ambient noise measurements, Mr. Meighan explains that the FEIR’s failure to include standard 24-hour baseline data undermines the reliability of the model inputs.
81 Peak-hour traffic conditions—
which may vary by environmental or traffic factors—cannot be confirmed without 24-hour data.82

The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to support its analysis with substantial evidence.

77 SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2023070241) (December 20, 2024), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/december- 2024/orc241106-09-deir-djt4-parcel-delivery-facility-project.pdf?sfvrsn=8acd8361_8. 78 Meighan DEIR Comments, pg. 2, 3.
79 Meighan Comments, pg. 1.
80 Id. at 2.
81 Meighan Comments, pg. 2.
82 Id.

September 8, 2025

Page 19 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
G. The FEIR Still Fails to Analyze Potentially Significant Public Utilities Impacts

The DEIR claimed that “the proposed Project would not require expanded water services during construction or operations that could cause significant environmental effects.”83 CARE CA’s previous comments demonstrated that the DEIR’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the DEIR failed to analyze whether additional infrastructure would be required to supply adequate fire flow.
84 Response IND 6-15 provides a history of the Project site’s development, but this does not reflect whether existing water infrastructure currently provides adequate fire flow.

The response also states that “the City’s personnel concluded it was reasonable to assume the existing infrastructure and proposed onsite infrastructure will provide water and wastewater to the project with enough available capacity, adequate flow, and not require off-site improvements (e.g., no pumps) to support the proposed project.”
85 This conclusion does not appear to be supported with substantial evidence, as a fire flow analysis is a quantitative analysis that has still not been provided in the FEIR.86

Response IND 6-15 argues that existing utility systems have capacity to serve the project, and that a water supply assessment was prepared. But as explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, the water supply assessment only addresses the adequacy of water supplies to the Project site, not the ability of infrastructure to deliver adequate fire flow.

The FEIR must be revised to include the missing quantitative analysis to support its conclusions. This review is essential for public safety because the Project proposes a 15-building business park in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Local Responsibility Area.
87 83 DEIR, pg. 3.14-17.
84 DEIR, pg. 3.14-17.
85 FEIR, pg. 9-624.
86 For example: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-1633_misc_2_12-23-2020.0001.pdf; https://www.ladwp.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/SAR%20Application%20Form%20%2007-01- 2023%20v1_0.pdf;
87 DEIR, pg. 3.15-4; see Los Angeles Times, Fire hydrants ran dry as Pacific Palisades burned. L.A. city officials blame ‘tremendous demand’ (Jan. 8, 2025), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-08/lack-of-water-from-hydrants-in-palisades-fire-is- hampering-firefighters-caruso-says.

September 8, 2025

Page 20 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper

III. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO APPROVE THE

ENTITLEMENTS

A. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Would Be
Unsupported by the Record

The Subdivision Map Act provides guidance as to the findings that the agency must make when approving a tentative map, and requires agencies to deny map approval if the project would result in significant environmental or public health impacts. Government Code, section 66474, provides:

A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:

(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Page 21 ends

6041-014acp

printed on recycled paper
a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Here, approval of the vesting tentative tract maps would place the community in a condition dangerous to its health and safety. Emissions from the Project’s construction and operational phases would emit TACs resulting in potentially significant cancer risks. Emissions of ROG and NOx during operations remain significant and not fully mitigated. The Project may result in significant and unmitigated noise impacts from vehicle traffic. The Planning Commission therefore lacks substantial evidence to make the necessary findings. The City must correct the errors in the EIR and adopt adequate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels before the City can approve the VTTM.

IV. CONCLUSION

As is explained herein, the FEIR’s analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts.

As a consequence of these impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under CEQA to certify the FEIR or under the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code to approve the Project’s entitlements. CARE CA urges the Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Sincerely,

Aidan P. Marshall

Attachments
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A
September 5, 2025

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Comments On C onejo Summit Project Final
Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No.
2023020425
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC) , Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the materials related to the City of Thousand Oaks’s (the City) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the above referenced project.

Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the FEIR. Any lack of comment on specific items should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.

Project Description:

According to the City’s website,1 the proposed project includes construction of a 15- building business park on 16 privately owned parcels. The 16 parcels include previously created lots that are approximately 49.57 net acres and would be reconfigured into 16 condominium lots. The proposed building footprints would cover approximately 17 acres (754,222 square feet [SF]). The buildings would range in size from approximately 22,700 SF to 93,300 SF of floor space and the building heights would range from 37 to 41 feet above finished grade. Buildings would be setback from 52 feet to more than 100 feet from the centerline of adjacent streets. Typically, each building would

1 https://toaks.gov/index.php?section=environmental&projectsection=5&project=41 Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]

have office space at the front of the building with warehouse/light manufacturing space in the rear.

Primary access to the proposed buildings would be from Rancho Conejo Boulevard and Conejo Center Drive. The proposed project would require approximately 156,186 cubic yards of cut and fill, which would be balanced on the site. It is anticipated that the entire project phasing will be completed within approximately 10 years from the commencement of the first phase.

Figure 1: Site Location Map
The proposed Project site is located in Ventura County, within the City of Thousand Oaks.

More specifically, the Project site is located near the western boundary of the City within the northwestern portion of the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area, approximately 1- mile north of the 101

Freeway, generally located at the intersection of Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Boulevard, Newbury Park, CA 91320.

Figure 2: Project Site Plan

The lots would be located in three separate clusters: on the western side of Conejo Center Drive just northwest of the intersection of Conejo Center Drive and Conejo Spectrum Street; along the eastern side of Conejo Center Drive from Conejo Spectrum Street up to Rancho Conejo Boulevard; and north of the intersection of Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Boulevard, extending west to a parcel at the end of Rancho Conejo Boulevard.

Overall, the construction phase would include multiple grading phases (each lasting between two months to 4 months); multiple building construction phases (each lasting between 8 months to 11 months); and, multiple combined paving plus architectural coating finishing phases (each lasting at least four two months). Construction is anticipated to start in the fourth quarter of 2025. The buildings are anticipated to be conventional tilt- up panel construction with concrete interior slabs on grade.

Grading would consist of minor cuts and fills to provide level previously graded building pads and

parking and circulation areas, and to remove the upper weathered desiccated soils. The proposed Project would require approximately 156,186 cubic yards of cut and fill, which would be balanced on the site.

The FEIR concludes that all air quality impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels by incorporation of mitigation measures Mitigation AQ-1 through Mitigation AQ-5. These mitigation measures focus on the control of dust from the construction phase of the Project (AQ -1), use of Tier-4 Emission Standards for construction equipment rated 50 horsepower (hp) or more (AQ- 2), use of “Super Compliant” low VOC architectural coatings (AQ -3), payments to the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (AQ-4), and monitoring/mitigation measures for Valley Fever (AQ -5). This conclusion in the F EIR i s not born out in my analysis of the supporting documentation in the FEIR.

Specific Comments

1. The FEIR Fails To Address How The Significant Emissions of NOx and ROGs During The Construction Phase Will Be Mitigated By

According to the FEIR, operational emissions of ROG and NOx would be reduced to less than the VCAPCD thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -4, as shown in Table

3.2-8 of the Draft EIR . But t he City’s analysis of the impacts from Mitigation Measures AQ-4 is unsupported. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the Transportation Demand Management Air Quality Impact Fee Payment, is a tax to the project to offset the cost of developing site -specific mitigation programs to reduce ROG and NOx from the Project site. But given that the transit and traffic demand management improvements are speculative at best the City must only consider them aspirational until actual mitigation measures are determined. Therefore, the assumption that the improvements will have any impact and specifically enough of an impact to always reduce the ROG and NOx emissions below the significance threshold are not supportable by the information in the FEIR.

From Table 3.2-6 of the DEIR it is clear that the initial and full build out unmitigated phase s of operation would exceed the NOx significance threshold based on the mobile sources associated with the Project. For the Full Buildout scenario, the ROG significance is exceeded due to area and

mobile sources.

As pointed out above, Mitigation Measure AQ -4 assumes that by paying a fee to the City for transit and traffic demand management improvements and other programs proposed by the Project developer for improvements in traffic (which are never defined in the DEIR or FEIR), the Project would achieve a reduction of 27 lbs per day for mobile sources in the initial phase lowering the total NOx emissions from 47 lbs per day to 20 lbs per day. In the full buildout scenario, the City assumes a reduction of 76 lbs per day reducing the total NOx emissions from mobile sources from 91 lbs per day to 15 lbs per day.

The speculative nature of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 clearly violates CEQA’s requirement that “feasible” mitigation measures are available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. The payment of fees for undefined measures is not a feasible approach for reducing the emissions from the Project. The City must require concrete measures of the Proponent or should reconsider the determination of the impacts from significant and mitigated to less than significant to significant and not mitigated.

2. The City Should Require On -site Mitigation Measures To Reduce The Operational Emissions Of NOx From The Project.

As detailed above, the use of Mitigation Measure AQ -4 to lower NOx emissions from the operational phase below the significance threshold of 25 lbs per day is not supported by the evidence in the FEIR or DEIR. Proven mitigation measures should be included in a revised FEIR for the Project.

Mitigation measures that have previously been recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to reduce operational emissions which the City should require for the Project include:

1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that require tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero -emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.

2. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

3. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring all trucks, and cars entering the Project site be zero-emission.

4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that require all vehicles entering or on the project site to restrict idling to 2 minutes or less.

5. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that require all heavy -duty trucks entering or on the project site to be model year 2018 or later, expedite a transition to zero - emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission beginning in 2030.

6. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that require the tenant be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on- road trucks including CARB's Heavy -Duty (Tractor -Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, 2 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),3 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.4

7. Require the Proponent to construct zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.

2 In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm.
3 The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance. CARB's PSIP program is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm.
4 The regulation requires that newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 201 0 model year engines or equivalent. CARB's Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm

8. Require the Proponent to install only zero -emission or near-zero emission equipment on site.

This would include using electric -powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel -fueled generators to supply their power.

9. The City can require a check of tire pressures to ensure maximum efficiency of the vehicles.

As tire pressure goes down, gas mileage decreases and the GHGs emitted per mile of the trip increase.

10. The City can require that the Project optimize the routes utilized by all trucks. This would require coordination of all trips to and from the site to ensure stops are reduced.

11. The City can requires that speeds for all vehicles within the vicinity of the Project site to be reduced.

12. Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the City as the Lead Agency should commit to re -evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.

These simple mitigation measures will produce measurable/reliable impacts on the NOx emissions during the operation phase beyond the speculative impacts from Mitigation Measure AQ-4. They should be included in a revised FEIR for the Project.

3. Response IND 6 -19: The City Has Not Addressed The Previous Concerns That The Health Risk Assessment Of The Construction Phase and Operational Phase Emissions Are In Conflict Regarding The Duration Of Exposure.

The City’s analysis of the HRA include the following “In addition, with regards to health risk, as shown in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Project DEIR, in Table 3.2- 10, mitigated health risk impacts for off-site receptors would be 4.8 in one million for exposure beginning during construction;

4.8 in one million for exposure beginning during interim operations; and 6.4 in one million for exposure beginning during full operations. The associated Project health risks are largely from the heavy-duty trucks during Project construction and operations that would travel along roads near the off-site sensitive receptors, with the closest being 1,200 feet to the east of the Project Site.” This

presents a series of scenarios that do not include a cumulative analysis of the exposure from construction through operation added together.

The City has failed to address my concerns that the HRA for the construction and operational phases is in conflict with the assumed construction schedule. According to the DEIR, 5 the proposed Project would consist of a maximum of seven phases, with an anticipated construction period of 12 to 18 months for each phase, beginning in 2025 and ending in 2035. Construction activities for the Project would take approximately 69 months6 and would include 7 distinct phases. In contrast to the statement in the DEIR, modeling in the Health Risk Analysis of the construction and operational phases assumed that all construction would be completed by 2031. Note 3 on page 3.2-22 of the DEIR states that “Project construction is estimated to start in 2025 with final buildout expected in 2035. For emissions modeling purposes, an earlier construction completion end year of 2031 was used only as a conservative assessment, which assumes no gaps in construction activities or phases. The conservative schedule used in the emissions modeling analyses assumes the phases would be built sequentially rather than include between 6 and 12 months of a gap between the end of the construction within the prior phase in order to accommodate the planning and permitting activity specific to the subsequent phase as potentially described in Section 2.6 of the Project Description of this Draft EIR.” The assumption that this is conservative is not correct. Risk from exposure to toxic chemicals is a function of the duration of exposure, amount of the chemical absorbed, toxicity of the chemical, and the concentration of the chemical in the environment. Reducing the duration of the exposure in the risk analysis while assuming the concentration in the environment would stay the same does not present a worst case or conservative analysis. Accurately modeling the amount of the exposure and the actual duration of exposure is the most conservative approach. Additionally, the City has failed to assess the cumulative risk to the community. This should be addressed in a supplemental EIR.

4. Response To IND 6-19: The FEIR Fails To Include Necessary Stationary Equipment In The Analysis Of Onsite Emissions

The City does agree that the Project design does not include new fire pumps then states that if

5 ESA. 2024. Conejo Summit Project DEIR. Dated November 2024. pg 2- 16. 6 ESA. 2024. Conejo Summit Project DEIR. Dated November 2024. pg 3.2- 23.

diesel fire pumps were to be installed that that would comply with Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s (VC-APCD’s) Rule 74.9 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). The City then states that “In accordance with Rule 74.9, emissions from maintenance and testing would not occur daily but, rather, periodically up to 50 hours per year. Furthermore, the fire pump(s) would be certified to the most stringent CARB and VCAPCD Rule 74.9 emissions standards and minimize emissions to the regulatory required level for equipment of this size and type, largely reducing associated periodic air quality and GHG emissions, and associated energy consumption to minimal levels. Therefore, Project air quality, energy and GHG emission impacts would be unchanged as a result of potential fire pump(s).”
The failure to include the emissions from the fire pumps and back-up generators (BUGS) still represents a significant unaddressed emission source for the Project. The qualitative analysis provided by the City fails to meet the requirements for an accurate description of the Project as required under CEQA. Back-up generators and diesel powered fire pumps will emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on diesel as a fuel source and will therefore impact public health by releasing diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) and other volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. This equipment can emit significant amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxides (SO 2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), VOC s, and air toxins such as DPM. The FEIR’s omission of an impact analysis for an onsite generator system thus results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts. The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete and must be corrected in a revised EIR for the Project.

5. Response to IND 6-13/6-20 The DEIR Significantly Underestimates Project Operational Emissions In Its Air Quality Analysis.

In response to comments on the underestimation of the Project operational emissions, the City responded that “The analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology and utilized the average trip length for light -heavy (15.3miles), medium -heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy - heavy trucks (39.9- miles).57 These trip lengths represent averages and include local trips as well as potential trips that may occur to the ports 58. Thus, truck trips to the ports were covered by the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR ” This response is inadequate and does not address the underlying

issue that the DEIR can clearly be demonstrated to underestimate the potential operational emissions.

As I pointed out in my comments, the DEIR’s reliance on the 39.9-mile trip length does not comport with the reality of where warehoused materials will ship from in the region. This distance severely underestimates the distances to the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Long Beach (POLB). The actual distance to POLA and POLB is 67 to 75 miles from the Project Site. If the materials transported to and from the Project Site are not associated with the Ports, then the City needs to provide a valid source for the distances traveled for vehicles in the County of Ventura.

In the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) EMission FACtor (EMFAC) online model the emission inventory for each county is accessible. The types of trucks included in the model are light duty (LDT1 and LDT2 which are less than 6,000 lbs), medium duty (T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 through 7 which range from 16,001 lbs to 33,000 lbs) and heavy duty (T7 Tractor Class 8 which are 33,001 lbs and greater).

Table 1: Vehicle Miles Traveled For Ventura County For Calendar Year 2025 From EMFAC Vehicle Category Fuel Population Total VMT VMT/day
T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Diesel 241.8215797 7229.715727 29.89690058 T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Diesel 320.4356874 9623.64669 30.03300527 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Diesel 868.6890687 26283.90735 30.25697951 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Diesel 151.5070213 7222.888837 47.67362445 T7 Tractor Class 8 Diesel 738.0354652 60485.94096 81.95533117

Generally, as vehicles get larger, the emissions from the vehicles increase. Focusing on the medium duty trucks first, the CARB model shows the average vehicle miles traveled within the County is 7222.89 miles per day for a population of 151 trucks. This equals a VMT of approximately 48 miles (7222.89 miles per day / 151.51 trucks = 47.67 miles per day) which is 20 percent greater than the amount assumed in the air quality analysis for the EIR. Next looking at the heavy duty tractor trailers used in Ventura County, the average vehicle miles traveled within the County is 60,485.96 miles per day for a population of 738 trucks. This equals a VMT of approximately 82 miles ( 60485.904096 miles per day /738.0354652 trucks = 81.95 miles per day) which is more than twice the amount assumed in the air quality analysis for the EIR.

For a fact -based analysis that accurately reflects the Project’s operational impacts, t he City must revise air quality analysis using realistic, reasonably foreseeable truck trip distances based on regional logistics data. To ensure transparency and address these discrepancies, a supplemental EIR is essential for presenting accurate emissions estimates and evaluating the Project’s cumulative impact on air quality.

Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts. A revised FEIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.

Sincerely,

EXHIBIT B

WI #25-001.40

September 5th, 2025
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: Conejo Summit FEIR
Thousand Oaks, California
Response to Comments

Dear Mr. Marshall
Per your request, we have reviewed the response to comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) regarding our noise and vibration letter for the Conejo Summit Project in Thousand Oaks, California. The FEIR is State Clearinghouse No. 2023020425 , prepared by ESA, dated September 2025. The comments on our letter are addressed in Chapter 9, responses IND 6 -9, 6-14, and 6-23.

These comments detail how 15 -minute noise measurements were taken to set baseline conditions , in addition to the preparation of a traffic noise model to determine 24 -hour noise levels. The comments also detail how peak Leq is inherently different from CNEL, which is a 24 -hour metric.

While these responses are accurate in describing the difference between metrics, they do not address the fundamental validation issue raised in our letter dated January 10, 2025. As stated in our letter, dated January 10th, 2025:

The FHWA considers validation an important part of the noise model process 1 for correct use of the [Traffic Noise Model] software. Such a program requires traffic input in the model to obtain noise levels. A typical approach is to build the model, validate that noise levels taken from a physical measurement match modeled levels taken from traffic counts obtained from a perio d as close as possible to the measurement date, and then use this validated model to predict noise levels for different traffic conditions. Caltrans requires measured and modeled locations to validate within 3 dB for highway projects to validate a noise model for this reason.2
The only mention of validation in the FEIR is in response IND 6 -23, which states “the noise model used established baseline conditions, was properly validated, considered worst-case conditions, and substantial evidence demonstrates less -than-significant im pacts.” The validation process is

1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/reviewing_noise_analysis/#toc494123470, section 2.8 2 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol- april-2020-a11y.pdf Page E-1

WILSON IHRIG
Conejo Summit FEIR
Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

described in Appendix E of the Caltrans April 2020 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects states:

The validation process involves comparing measured sound levels with sound levels that are predicted using traffic data (traffic volumes, mix, speeds, etc.) that was collected concurrently with the sound level measurements. A comparison between the measured sound level and the predicted sound level indicates the relative accuracy of the project- specific model
Because this project includes both noise measurements and current traffic data, validation should have been straightforward. The absence of such validation raises a serious methodological flaw: the FEIR relies on a noise model that has not been demonstrated to accurately reflect site -specific conditions. Without this step, the model cannot be assumed to provide substantial evidence of less - than-significant impacts under CEQA.

Moreover, the availability of only 15 -minute noise measurements, rather than standard industry- practice 24-hour baseline data, further undermines the reliability of the model inputs. Peak -hour traffic conditions —which may vary by environmental or traffic factors —cannot be confirmed without 24-hour data. This omission compounds the failure to validate the mo del and increases the risk that actual project impacts have been underestimated.

For these reasons, we maintain that the FEIR’s conclusion of less -than-significant noise impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. Consistent with CEQA and Caltrans protocol, the City must prepare a revised or supplemental Environmental Impact Repo rt that includes a validated noise model based on concurrent traffic counts and 24-hour baseline data.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG

Jack Meighan
Associate
conejo summit - comments on feir.docx
cdd:420-46/sk/H:COMMON/City Council/Agenda Packet/2025/2025-10-21/Shapell/Staff Report-City Council/pz/(FILE ID:
2019-70439-DP)

Thousand Oaks City CouncilOctober 21, 2025

Thousand Oaks City Council
October 21, 2025