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.
3-18
Cont.
September 8, 2025
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.
3-19
September 8, 2025
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.
3-19
Cont.
3-20
September 8, 2025
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.
3-21
September 8, 2025
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.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(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 3-22
September 8, 2025
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
3-22
Cont.
3-23
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
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)