Thousand Oaks City Council
October 21, 2025

THOUSAND OAKS

PLANNING COMMISSION
Supplemental
Information
Packet 1
September 5, 2025
Agenda Related Items
Meeting of September 8, 2025
Supplemental Information:

Any agenda-related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically they are distributed on the Thursday or Friday preceding the Planning Commission meeting and/or on Monday before the meeting. Supplemental Packets on Thursday or Friday are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). All Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the Planning Commission on the City’s website www.toaks.gov.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the Planning Division, (805) 449-2500.

Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City in ensuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

ATTACHMENT #4

To: Planning Commission

From: Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director

Date: September 5, 2025

Subject: Regarding Item 07A – Conejo Summit Project 2022-70771-EIR Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2023020425), 2019-70439-DP Development Permit (DP), 2019- 70440-VTTM/2019-70441-VTTM Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), 2021-71158-PTP Protected Tree Permit (PTP), 2019-70442-USP Uniform Sign Program (USP), 2019-70443-LPC Landscape Plan Check (LPC)

The attached contains public correspondence that arrived after posting and distributing the Agenda.

The attached also contains three additional brief professional summar ies, one for each individual involved in developing the Final EIR responses. These professional summaries are added to the Final EIR’s Appendix N which contains other professional summaries.

cdd:420-46/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2025/2025-09-08 Meeting/Supplemental/Supplemental 1.pdf/pz [FILE ID: 2019- 70439-DP]
1 Scott Kolwitz
From: Brian Flynn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Community Development Department; Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Comment: Conejo Summit Business Park (PC Agenda Item 7.A) Attachments: 2025.09.03 SAFER Comment (Conejo Summit Business Park)_draft.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission and Planner Kolwitz:

Please find attached a comment submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the EIR prepared for the Conejo Summit Project scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 7.A at the Planning Commission’s September 8, 2025 meeting.

Confirmation of receipt of this email and attachment would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 836-4200
(510) 836-4205 (fax)
[email protected]

--

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

January 9, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Mic Farris, Chair
Marcella Tyler Ketelhut, Vice Chair
Kara Buss, Commissioner
Don Lanson, Commissioner
Sharon McMahon, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]
Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]

Re: SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Business Park
Environmental Impact Report 2022-70775-EIR
Planning Commission Agenda Item 7.A (Sept. 8, 2025)

To the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission and Planner Kolwitz:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in and around the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) regarding the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023020425) prepared for the Conejo Summit Project (“Project”) scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 7.A at the Planning Commission’s September 8, 2025 meeting.

Previously, on January 9, 2025, SAFER submitted a comment on the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) during the public review period (“January 9 Comment”). SAFER’s January 9 Comment raised concerns that the DEIR failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on biological resources and energy. For impacts to biological resources, SAFER’s review of the DEIR was assisted by expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. The January 9 Comment stated that Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV were attached as Exhibit A. However, inadvertently, the Exhibit A attached to the January 9 Comment was Dr. Smallwood’s report regarding the Project’s previous mitigated negative declaration from 2022, not his updated report on the EIR in 2025.

To fix this issue, SAFER’s January 9, 2025 Comment is attached as Attachment 1 with the correct report of Dr. Smallwood (dated January 4, 2025) attached thereto as Exhibit A.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
PC Agenda Item 7.A (Sept. 8, 2025)
September 3, 2025

For the reasons discussed in Attachment 1, SAFER respectfully requests that Planning Commission not approve the Project at this time and, instead, direct staff to revise and recirculate the EIR prior to further consideration of the Project.

Sincerely,

Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP

ATTACHMENT 1

January 9, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]

Re: SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Business Park Draft EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2023020425

To Senior Planner Kolwitz:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in and around the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023020425) (“DEIR”) prepared for the Conejo Summit Project (“Project”) proposed by Thousand Oaks Master LLC.

SAFER is concerned the DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by: (1) failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on biological resources and (2) failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on energy. SAFER’s review of the Project and EIR was assisted by expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SAFER respectfully requests that City revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the concerns discussed below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project proposes multiple-phase business park development that would include 15 industrial buildings totaling 754,222 square feet (671,122 sf of warehouse/light manufacturing and 83,100 sf of office). The proposed buildings would range in size from approximately 22,700 to 93,300 sf of floor area and from 37 to 41 feet in height. The Project will also include 1,663 surface parking spaces.

The 51-arce Project site is located near the western boundary of the City within the SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

northwestern portion of the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area, approximately 1-mile north of the 101 Freeway. The Project site abuts the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area, which is owned and managed by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA). Construction of the 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.

LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (Berkeley Jets); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A), (B).)
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 [quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391, 409, n.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

12.) “A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs ‘if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.) An EIR must “include[] sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one- paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id.) As the Court emphasized:

[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question.

A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can b e determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

(Id. at 514.)

In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (14 CCR § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.

DISCUSSION

III. DISCUSSION

A. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded: (1) the DEIR underestimates the diversity of species at and near the Project site; (2) the DEIR fails to assess or mitigate the Project’s impacts to species due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting; and (3) the DEIR’s mitigation measures are inadequate to reduce the Project’s impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

1. The DEIR underestimates the diversity of species using the Project site.

Dr. Smallwood and his associate conducted three separate reconnaissance surveys of the Project site by walking the site’s perimeters where accessible and scanning for wildlife with binoculars. (Ex. A, pp. 1-2.) They detected 67 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 14 special-status species, including California gnatcatcher, red-tailed hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and oak titmouse. (Id., pp. 3-6.) Notably, they observed an additional 5 special-status species that were not seen during the surveys conducted for the DEIR’s biological report (“Dudek Report”). (Id., p.

19.)

Dr. Smallwood calculated that more thorough site visits would reveal an even greater diversity of wildlife. (Ex. A, pp. 15-18.) Given more time to survey the site, Dr. Smallwood’s predicts that he would have detected 138 species of vertebrate wildlife, 29 of which would be special-status species. (Id., p. 17.) Based on his review of the DEIR and the site visits, Dr.

Smallwood concluded, “[T]he large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.” (Id., p. 18.)

Additionally, the Dudek Report’s review of available wildlife databases was inadequate. (Ex. A, pp. 21-23.) The Dudek Report relied on the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) to determine which species have potential to occur in the Project area. (Id., p. 21.) By relying on only the nearest CNBBD quadrangles, Dudek “screens out many special-status species from further consideration in their characterization of the wildlife community.” (Id.) This is an improper use of CNDDB because “CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. (Id.)

Based on available databases (including CNDDB, iNaturalist, and eBird) and site visits, Dr. Smallwood found that “135 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential.” (Ex. A, p. 22.) However, the Dudek Report only analyzed the occurrence potential for 38 species (i.e. 28% of the species identified by Dr. Smallwood). (Id.) The faulty analysis in the Dudek Report results in unreliable conclusions about the Project site’s biological baseline, including that: (1) California gnatcatcher is not present on the site despite confirmed sightings on site; (2) the occurrence likelihoods, based on CNDDB records, of burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and mountain lion are low despite the confirmed sightings of the species near or adjacent to the site; and (3) monarch butterfly is not expected to occur on site despite records showing that monarchs have been observed as close as 620 meters from the site. (Id., pp. 22-24.)

Every EIR must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321; see 14 CCR § 15125(a). Due to the inadequate analysis on the Dudek Report, the DEIR underestimates the biological baseline at the Project site and, as a result, cannot provide substantial evidence about SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

the severity of the Project’s impacts on biological resources. As a result, the DEIR should be revised to properly disclose the biological baseline and the impacts of this Project.

2. The DEIR failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting.

Dr. Smallwood found that the DEIR failed to adequately discuss numerous significant impacts that the Project may have on biological resources due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting. (Ex. A, pp. 31-38.) By failing to disclose and mitigate these impacts, the DEIR is inadequate. The EIR must be revised to account for the impacts discussed below.

a. Habitat loss and fragmentation

Dr. Smallwood found that the DEIR downplays the impacts of habitat loss resulting from the Project by assuming that the adjacent Conejo Open Space Conservation Area would provide ample habitat. (Ex. A, p. 31.) As Dr. Smallwood explains,

The DEIR does not consider that habitat outside the project site is already occupied, and the project would reduce carrying capacities of the species affected. Carrying capacities prevent wildlife from existing at densities that would result from project refugees crowded into neighboring habitat. Ultimately, either the refugees or the animals in the receiving habitat would succumb to the breach of carrying capacity, and the numbers of each species would decline to the reduced carrying capacities resulting from the project.

(Id.) As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in a loss of 880 bird nests, which corresponds to an overall loss of 3,899 birds per year, which “would be both substantial and highly significant.” (Id., p. 32.) The DEIR should be revised and recirculated to disclose and mitigate this impact to the extent possible.

b. Wildlife Movement

Similar to the DEIR’s discussion of habitat loss, the DEIR assumes that the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area would minimize the Project’s impacts to wildlife movement. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-12, -33.) Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR applied an improper standard to analyze the Project’s impacts to wildlife movement. (Ex. A, p. 28.) However, as Dr. Smallwood explains,

There was no sampling regime or program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them. Based on what is reported, Dudek (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

any way. The DEIR’s conclusions regarding wildlife movement on the project site are purely speculative and conclusory.

(Ex. A, p. 33.) The DEIR’s conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, not speculation.

As such, the DEIR should be revised to include a technical assessment of wildlife movement patterns through the Project site.

c. Traffic

The DEIR fails to address the impacts to wildlife from collisions with traffic generated by the Project. This omission is important because, as Dr. Smallwood explains,

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

(Ex. A, p. 34.) According to the DEIR, the Project would result in 23,192 daily vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), which amounts to 8,465,080 annual VMT. (Id, p. 26.) Based on the Project’s annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood estimates that traffic from the Project will kill at least 3,600 vertibrates annually. (Id., pp. 36-37.) Especially due to the special-status species occurring and likely to occur at or near the Project, these collisions represent a significant impact to wildlife that has not been addressed, discussed, or mitigated in the EIR.

d. Artificial Lighting

The DEIR fails to address the impacts on wildlife from the nighttime lighting used to illuminate the Project’s extensive parking areas. This omission is significant because, as Dr.

Smallwood explains,

Artificial lighting causes a variety of substantial impacts on a variety of wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006), including interference with circadian rhythm, disruption of foraging activity, disruption of movement patterns, navigational interference and lethal attraction of flying birds, and altered development of eggs and juveniles/larvae.

(Ex. A, p. 33.) Due to the special-status species occurring and likely to occur at or near the Project and the proximity of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area, the DEIR should be revised to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts to wildlife from artificial lighting.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

4. The DEIR’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.

Although the DEIR contains 12 mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources, the DEIR’s proposed mitigation is inadequate to reduce impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting to less-than-significant levels.

Additional mitigation measures should be added to the DEIR including: (1) protocol-level detection surveys for burrowing owl; (2) compensatory mitigation for habitat loss by protecting an equal or greater area of open space in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible; (3) compensatory mitigation for traffic impacts by requiring monetary contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities; and (4) requiring California native plants for all landscaping. (Ex. A, pp. 42-43.)

II. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Energy Impacts.

CEQA provides that all Projects must include measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)

The DEIR concludes that the Project will not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources based, in part, on the fact that the Project will comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) (“Title 24”) and by providing electric vehicle parking spaces. However, mere compliance with Title 24 does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 165 (League to Save Lake Tahoe); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.

App. 4th 256, 264-65; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) And even though the inclusion of electric vehicle parking is laudable, a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-67.) A lead agency’s failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a “prejudicial error.” (Id. at 168.)

The DEIR fails to include any discussion of incorporating rooftop solar photovoltaic panels. The Project should be required to include the installation of rooftop solar panels to ensure that the Project does not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The DEIR cannot rely on the more relaxed standards of Title 24 that allow for the rooftops to only be solar-ready without requiring the actual installation of solar panels. A revised SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

DEIR should require the installation of rooftop solar panels or otherwise explain why solar installation is infeasible.

CONCLUSION
Due to the DEIR’s failure to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s impacts to biological resources and the DEIR’s failure to ensure that the Project does not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, SAFER respectfully requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the concerns raised in this written comment. SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.)
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 4 January 2025
RE: Conejo Summit Project DEIR
Dear Mr. Kolwitz,
I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed Conejo Summit Project (City of Thousand Oaks 2024), which I understand would add 15 industrial buildings up to 41 feet tall and totaling 754,222 square feet of floor space, and accompanied by 1,663 parking stalls on 51.34 acres at Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Blvd., Newbury Park. I also reviewed the biological resources report (Dudek 2024). I write to comment on the inaccuracies of the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the inadequacies of the impacts analyses and mitigation.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
We visited the project site on three separate sets of dates, totaling 13.5 person-hours of reconnaissance surveys (Table 1). We walked the site’s perimeters where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. We recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife we detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. The site had been graded in the past, and is now covered by annual grassland and patchy coastal sage scrub (Photos 1-4). It was bordered by expansive scrubland, chaparral and woodland as part of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area to the west and north, and otherwise by industrial buildings.
2 Table 1. Reconnaissance surveys conducted on the Conejo Summit Project in Thousand Oaks, California, totaling 13.5 hours.

Date

Biologist
Start
time
Duration
(mins)

Conditions
7 March 2022 KSS 15:18 165 68° F, clear, little breezy
8 March 2022 KSS 06:12 165 48° F, clear, no wind
2 April 2023 NLS 15:18 146 62-59° F, sunny,10 MPH SW wind 24 December 2024 NLS 07:17 162 60-76° F, sunny, no wind 24 December 2024 NLS 15:30 95 62-57° F, sunny, 6 MPH W wind 24 December 2024 (bats) NLS 16:59 77 57° F, clear, 6 MPH W wind

3 Photos 1, 2, 3, and 4. Views to the northwest (top) and north (bottom) of the project site, 8 March 2022.

We detected 67 species of vertebrate wildlife at or next to the project site, including 14 special-status species of wildlife (Table 2). We saw red-tailed hawk (Photos 5, 6, 7), Cooper’s hawk (Photo 8), turkey vulture (Photos 9 and 10), merlin and California thrasher (Photos 11 and 12), California gnatcatcher and oak titmouse (Photos 13 and 14), American crow and common raven (Photos 15 and 16), black phoebe and western meadowlark (Photos 17 and 18), Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 19 and 20), house finch and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 21 and 22), lark sparrow and California towhee (Photos 23 and 24), savannah sparrow and Lincoln’s sparrow (Photos 25 and 26), white- crowned sparrow (Photos 27 and 28), Say’s phoebe (Photos 29 and 30), California quail (Photos 31 and 32), hermit thrush (Photo 33), mourning dove and Cassin’s kingbird (Photos 34 and 35), Bewick’s wren and gophersnake (Photos 36 and 37), Eastern fox squirrel (Photo 38), among other species listed in Table 2.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

4 Table 2. Species of wildlife Noriko or I observed during 5.5 hours on 7-8 March 2022 (KSS), during 2.43 hours on 2 April 2023 (NLS), and during 5.57 on 24 December 2024 (NLS).

Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
Baja California treefrog Pseudacris h. hypochondriaca X X X Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
X

Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
X

Gophersnake Pituophis melanoleucus X Deceased atop fence Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
California quail Callipepla californica X X Large flock Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin X
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X Circled over site Northern harrier
Circus hudsonicus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP X Perched and flew low Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X Circled over site Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X X Two counter-called Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X X Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X Just off site 5 Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X Foraged
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina X
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X Foraged
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X Called
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X Foraged
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X Called and foraged Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus X
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X Foraged
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X X Flew over Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X Perched just off site House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X Flew over, called American goldfinch Spinus tristis X Flew over, called Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus X
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X X Many, foraged Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X Foraged
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X Foraged
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X Called
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X X
6 Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X X Called
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X Foraged
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M X Detected using Sonobat Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X Scat
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X Just off site California ground
squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
X X X

Coyote Canis latrans X
Black-tailed deer Odocoileus h. hemionus X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X X X Burrows
1 Listed as FT = federal threatened, SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
7 Photos 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Red-tailed hawk (top left, 7 March 2022), (top right and middle left), Cooper’s hawk (middle right), and turkey vulture (bottom) on the project site, 24 December 2024. All but top left photos by Noriko Smallwood.

8 Photos 11 and 12. Merlin (left) and California thrasher (right) on the project site, 7- 8 March 2022. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Photos 13 and 14. California gnatcatcher (left) and oak titmouse (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

9 Photos 15 and 16. American crow (left) and common raven (right) on the project site, 7-8 March 2022. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Photos 17 and 18. Black phoebe (left) on the project site, 7-8 March 2022. Photo by Shwan Smallwood. Western meadowlark (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

10 Photos 19 and 20. Anna’s hummingbirds on the project site. Left photo by Shawn Smallwood, 7 March 2022, and right photo by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

Photos 21 and 22. House finch (left) on the project site, 8 March 2022. Photo by Shwan Smallwood. Yellow-rumped warbler (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

11 Photos 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Lark sparrow (top left), California towhee (top right), savannah sparrow (middle left), Lincoln’s sparrow (middle right), and white- crowned sparrow (bottom) on the project site. Photos 23, 24, 25 by Shawn Smallwood, 7-8 March 2022, Photos 26, 27, and 28 by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

12 Photos 29 and 30. Say’s phoebes on the project site. Left photo by Shawn Smallwood, 7-8 March 2022, and right photo by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

Photo 31. Flock of California quail on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

13 Photos 32 and 33. California quail (left) and hermit thrush (right) just off of the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 34 and 35. Mourning dove (left) and Cassin’s kingbird (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

14 Photos 36 and 37. Bewick’s wren (left) and deceased gophersnake (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 38. Eastern fox squirrel just off of the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

15 Photo 39. Sonogram of Hoary bat on the project site, 24 December 2024, recorded using a Petterson m500 detector and Sonobat.

The species of wildlife we detected at the project site comprised only samplings of the species that were present during our surveys. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to our cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into each survey to predict the numbers of species that we would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case of this project site, the models fit to our survey data predict 63 and 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the mornings of 8 March 2022 and 24 December 2024, and 57 abd 78 species were avilable to be detected on the evenings of 7 March 2022 and 2 April 2023, but only 23 species were available to be detected on the evening of 24 December 2024 (Figure 1). The low prediction on the evening of the 24th of December 2024 might have resulted from insufficient survey duration, as that survey was the briefest. Otherwise, the model predictions resulting from the patterns in the data of the other surveys indicates we were only sampling the available species of wildlife on the project site.

The patterns in our species detections indicate that the project site supports an above- average species richness as compared to 15 other sites in the region where we have completed similar surveys. Importantly, however, the species we did and did not detect on during our surveys composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.

16 Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on my visual-scan surveys on 7-8 March 2022, and on Noriko’s visual-scan surveys on 2 April 2023 and 24 December 2024.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have data from our five surveys. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely use the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1 𝑎⁄ +𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
95% CI 2019-2024
Y03/08/2022
Y12/24/2024
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
95% CI 2019-2024
Y03/07/2022
Y04/02/2023
Y12/24/2024

0.99 12.5

0.99 22.8

0.99 8.3
r2 Loss

0.97 89.4

0.98 48.7
r2 Loss
Mornings Evenings
17 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 27.8 species over my first 13.5 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (13.5 hours to match the 13.5 hours we surveyed at the project site), which composed 48.7% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 67 species we detected after our 13.5 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 48.7% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, we would likely detect 67 0.487⁄ = 138 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming our ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 138 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long survey
increments across 46 visual-
scan survey stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, 2015‒2019.

Note that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant to the
utility of the graph to the
interpretation of survey
outcomes at the project site. It is
the pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the pattern is
typical of the pattern seen
elsewhere.

Because my prediction of 138 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from mostly daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats and owls, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Our reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than our few surveys to inventory the species of 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
18 wildlife that use the project site. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys

To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

Biologists from Dudek (2024) completed 11 surveys totaling 54 person-hours on the project site, which were more surveys and more survey time than I typically see committed by environmental consulting firms. Dudek (2024) also reported critical survey details such as start time, survey duration, and survey conditions. I commend Dudek for the effort in survey and reporting. Also noteworthy are the 64 species of vertebrate wildlife that were detected by Dudek (2024). This survey outcome qualifies as a vast improvement over the seven species of wildlife that were reportedly detected by ESA on 26 February 2020. ESA’s findings were only 8% of the species detected collectively by Dudek and us in subsequent surveys. As I commented in my letter of 11 March 2022, “Either the reporting of ESA’s survey is incomplete, or for some reason ESA’s survey was grossly ineffective.” However, the increase in the numbers of species detected through the various surveys is instructive. A model fit to the data predicts 135 species of vertebrate wildlife would be detected by more than 30 visual-scan surveys (Figure 3), which is a prediction within two percentage points of my prediction of 138 species based on our survey findings that I analytically bridged to a large research effort (see above).

19 Figure 3. The
increase in
cumulative
detections of
vertebrate wildlife
species increased
with the number of
survey efforts, and a
model fit to the data
which predicts 135
species would be
detected after more
than 30 surveys.

Comparison of Dudek’s surveys results to our own reveals the incompleteness of the survey effort committed to this project site (Figure 3). Our survey results combined with Dudek’s, we collectively detected 87 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 18 special- status species on or adjacent to the project site. Dudek’s biologists detected 21 species of vertebrate wildlife that we did not (including 6 special-status species), and we detected 23 species of vertebrate wildlife that Dudek’s biologists did not (including 5 special- status species). We mutually detected only two-thirds of the species we each detected.

One could surmise that we and Dudek’s biologists observed two different wildlife communities.

Applying the Sørenson Index of 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
2𝑐
𝑎+𝑏 , where a is the number of species
found by Dudek, b is the number of species we found, and c is the number of species found by both Dudek and ourselves, the Index of Similarity of the two wildlife communities is only 0.67. For comparison, the mean Index of Similarity among 40 comparisons of surveys I completed over the same time periods at the same place, but on different days over three years 2020-2023, was 0.755 with a high value of 0.90. A value of 0.67 between Dudek’s surveys and ours indicates the wildlife communities between these two sets of surveys were similar but not the same, but of course the sampled wildlife community was the same; the source of the dissimilarity was the inability of either survey effort to sufficiently represent yearlong use of the site by wildlife.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Survey
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
ESA survey 2022
Smallwood surveys 2022-2023
Smallwood surveys Dec 2024
Dudek surveys 2022-2023
Y
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected a = 135
20 The survey effort not only determines the number of species to be detected at a given site, but it also affects the probability of detection of listed species. In my comment letter of 11 March 2022 on the IS/MND prepared for this same project, I pointed out that ESA’s survey effort had carried only an 11% probability of detecting a listed species, and that my survey effort up to that time carried a 61% probability of detecting a listed species. I presented an empirical model (Figure 3 in my 11 March 2022 comment letter) that forecast a 90% probability of detection of a listed species through the detections of 70 total wildlife species. The total number of species detected served as a surrogate predictor variable that represented survey effort, as the number of species detected follows from survey effort. After Dudek’s surveys, 79 species of wildlife had been detected, which increased the probability of detection of a listed species to about 92%. It is therefore not surprising that Dudek (2024) reports the detection of California gnatcatcher – a listed species. At the completion of Noriko’s surveys on 24 December 2024, the cumulative species detected had increased to 87, which would have increased the probability of detection of a listed species to about 95%. It is therefore not surprising that Noriko also detected California gnatcatcher, this one having crossed Conejo Center Drive from west to east, but both sides directly on the project site. This same type of modeling can be applied to forecast the probabilities of detections of 2nd and 3rd listed species with greater survey effort. With greater survey effort, it would not be surprising to detect California condor or white-tailed kite or golden eagle (California Fully Protected) or burrowing owl or willow flycatcher or tricolored blackbird.

Dudek (2024) and the DEIR characterize the project site as “highly disturbed,” thereby giving the impression that the site is of low value to wildlife. However, neither Dudek (2024) nor the DEIR provides any evidence that the types and magnitudes of disturbance on the project site has any relationship to wildlife species richness or species composition. In fact, some species, including some special-status species, appear to thrive in the face of certain types and magnitudes of disturbance. For example, burrowing owls benefit from trenching and infill where soils are silty or clay in composition (Smallwood and Morrison 2018). As another example, Swainson’s hawks benefit from agricultural practices that render prey species more vulnerable to capture (Smallwood 1995, Smallwood et al. 1996). The DEIR over-generalizes that disturbance reduces the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. These over- generalizations are readily refuted by the surveys completed to date, and it is clear from the patterns in the species detection data that additional surveys would continue to detect more species of wildlife, including more special-status species.

I note that focused surveys were directed to two special-status species of wildlife – Crotch’s bumble bee and California gnatcatcher. Both species were detected as results of the focused surveys. To my point above, species of wildlife are more likely to be detected when sufficient survey effort is committed to them, as was the case for Crotch’s bumble bee and California gnatcatcher. The failure of a couple of reconnaissance surveys to detect a particular special-status species does not qualify as evidence of absence. Only the negative findings of species-specific detection surveys or of an overwhelming survey effort can qualify as evidence of absence.

21 Considering that ground squirrels occur on the project site, and considering that burrowing owls in California have rapidly declined (Miller 2024) and the California Fish and Game Commission voted to name the burrowing owl as a Candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, focused detection surveys are warranted for burrowing owls on the project site.

No surveys for bats have been completed, except by Noriko Smallwood on my behalf.

The DEIR’s conclusions regarding bats remain ill-informed in the absence of surveys.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review

The purpose of literature and database review and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths.

Dudek (2024) did not reportedly review eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project site. Instead, Dudek (2024) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within inclusive and immediately surrounding USGS Quadrangle maps. By doing so, Dudek (2024) screens out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Dudek (2024) misuses CNDDB.

The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. The lack of many CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with whether the species’ geographic ranges overlapped the project site, but rather more to do with the brief time for records to have accumulated since the species were assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either.

22 In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 135 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 3). Of these 135 species, 18 (13%) were recorded on or adjacent to the project site, and another 41 (30%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 21 (16%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 47 (35%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Most (59%) of the species in Table 3 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in Dudek (2024).

Only 38 (28%) of the species in Table 3 are analyzed for occurrence potential in Dudek (2024), having omitted from its analysis 97 (72%) of the species in Table 3. Of the species omitted from Dudek’s analysis, 12 have been recorded on or next to the project site, 29 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, 14 have been recorded between

1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 35 have been recorded between 4 and 30 miles of the site.

On the whole, Dudek’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods are too often inaccurate. Most of the species omitted from the analysis were likely omitted due to Dudek’s improper use of CNDDB to screen species from the analysis.

Of the 4 species Dudek (2024) assigns moderate occurrence likelihood, 2 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, and 1 has been recorded on the site. Of the 12 species Dudek assigns low occurrence likelihood, 3 have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and 5 have been recorded within 1.5 miles. Of the 15 species Dudek concludes are not expected to occur, 4 have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and 3 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site.

Dudek (2024) reports that the occurrence likelihood analyses were completed prior to the field survey. However, Table 4 of Dudek (2024) concludes that the California gnatcatcher is absent from the project site due to negative findings following focused surveys for California gnatcatcher. Dudek’s reporting indicates that either the occurrence likelihood analyses did not in fact precede the field surveys, or Dudek considers its California gnatcatcher sightings as having been off site. (Noriko Smallwood’s detection of California gnatcatcher was directly on site.) Dudek’s reporting is also inaccurate. Dudek’s focused surveys detected California gnatcatcher only 438 m from the project site. Noriko also detected California gnatcatcher, but directly on the project site. App. E of Dudek (2024) assigns California gnatcatcher moderate occurrence likelihood despite having detected 3 California gnatcatchers in 2023, and despite multiple CNDDB occurrences in the area. California gnatcatchers are certainly on the project site.

Given the inconsistencies between Dudek’s (2024) Table 4 and App. E, as exemplified by the very substantial inconsistency between the California gnatcatcher analyses, I opted to rely more on Dudek’s App. E than on Dudek’s Table 4 for reporting in Table 3.

Dudek (2024) concludes that the occurrence likelihood of burrowing owl is low because there are no CNDDB records of the species within 5 miles of the project site. However, 23 this reasoning is flawed because Dudek neglected to review eBird for occurrence records. There are multiple eBird records in the area, including one very close to the project site on Santa Rosa Trail. There are records at California Lutheran University and Mt. Clef Ridge Open Space and Conejo Open Space’s Rancho Hills Trail and Rancho Sierra Vista and elsewhere within 5 miles of the project site. Dudek also reasons that the occurrence likelihood is low because the site supports few California ground squirrels.

However, Noriko and I detected California ground squirrels at the project site each time we visited it, and Dudek’s biologists saw them there, too. Of the 67 species we detected at the site, only 18 (27%) were detected during all three of our visits, and one of these was California ground squirrel. It is my opinion that the California ground squirrel is one of the more ubiquitous of the wildlife species on site. Dudek has not provided a defensible reason for assigning burrowing owl a low likelihood of occurrence.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to California condor, but locations of eBird records and telemetry positions are only 19 km to the north, and the condor has been expanding its range year by year. A distance of 19 km is but a small trip to a California condor.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to white-tailed kite. However, there are multiple occurrence records right next to the project site (Figure 4). Having studied white-tailed kites, I see no reason why the species should be assigned a low occurrence likelihood.

Dudek (2024) concludes that monarch is not expected to occur, because “No suitable wind-protected tree groves are present in the study area to support this species.” However, Dudek neglects to cite the source of this purported requirement for occurrence, which I cannot recall ever having seen in writing or evidenced in the field.

In fact, I have photos of monarchs on open fields with no trees nearby, let along wind- protected trees. In my opinion, Dudek has pigeon-holed monarch into an unrealistically narrow portion of the environment. Monarchs occur more broadly, and they must if they are to migrate the great distances that they do to winter roost sites. According to iNaturalist, monarch occurrence records, including larvae, are located as close as 620 m from the project site, and nowhere near trees. Dudek’s (2024) characterization of monarch habitat is inaccurate.

24 Figure 4. eBird occurrence records (blue teardrops) of white-tailed kite very close to the project site.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to mountain lion, explaining “this species has the potential to occur in the study area as a transient during foraging, movement through its home range, or during the dispersal of young. However, due to the proximity of the project site to development, lions are more likely to use the undisturbed open space areas surrounding the study area, and natal dens of this species are not expected since females typically avoid areas of human activity… because the project site is highly disturbed and supports a more open scrub habitat with less cover than the surrounding areas, mountain lions are likely to avoid use of the project site.” However, a photo of a mountain lion taken only one mile east of the project site (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/60780759) shows it next to the fence that borders a housing complex. This photo refutes Dudek’s speculative habitat

25 requirements, as does lots of other evidence of mountain lions in proximity to human development.

I began my research career on mountain lions. Until 1985, the range map of California mountain lion excluded Marin County for some of the same speculated factors cited by Dudek. Funded by CDFW, I did a survey in Marin County, and found mother and kitten tracks on Corte Madera Ridge just upslope from houses in San Rafael. The range map was changed. Since 1985, I have surveyed for mountain lions on randomized plots statewide at least eight times, and I have performed additional, more focused surveys, as well. I have often found mountain lions close to human habitation, and I have many times tracked mountain lions that traveled miles at a time. The one mile between the project site and the nearest iNaturalist record is trivial for a mountain lion. I once saw a female mountain lion calling for a mate on the UC Davis Campus, and shortly afterwards a female and her kitten were captured on the campus after the mother killed several mule deer that were kept in a pen for research purposes. Mountain lions frequently make use of human-dominated landscapes, and I will posit that they do so much more often than people realize. Mountain lions are stealthy, and mostly nocturnal in their activities. Dudek’s analysis of mountain lion occurrence likelihood is contrived and misleading.

In addition to the above, I found other inaccurate characterizations of habitat of special- status species, which led to unfounded predictions of low occurrence likelihoods. It would have been helpful had Dudek made more use of the scientific literature, and had it consulted with species experts. Sources need to be cited.

26 Table 3. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify those species we detected.

Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT Not expected In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Not expected In range Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not expected Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Occurs Very close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Not expected In region Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not expected Very close Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Moderate Very close San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Low Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Low In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Not expected Nearby South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not expected In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE Not expected In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC Not expected In region 27 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Just off site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Not expected Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Nearby
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE, CE, CFP Low In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Low Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Low Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Just off site Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
28 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP, CCE Low Very close Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Occurs On site American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP On site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Moderate Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Not expected Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Very close
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Occurs On site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Moderate On site Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
SSC1 Occurs On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Occurs On site Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
29 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Occurs On site Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Occurs Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Not expected Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Low Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M On site
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H Low In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range 30 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Low Nearby
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Not expected In region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In range San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Moderate In region Ringtail Bassariscus astutus CFP In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Low Nearby
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT Low Very close
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 1Delisted as CFP

31 POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed or not analyzed at all. These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.

HABITAT LOSS AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. Habitat fragmentation amplifies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species (Smallwood 2015). However, instead of analyzing this type of impact with any rigor, the DEIR writes that ample habitat exists outside the perimeter of the project site. The DEIR does not consider that habitat outside the project site is already occupied, and the project would reduce carrying capacities of the species affected. Carrying capacities prevent wildlife from existing at densities that would result from project refugees crowded into neighboring habitat. Ultimately, either the refugees or the animals in the receiving habitat would succumb to the breach of carrying capacity, and the numbers of each species would decline to the reduced carrying capacities resulting from the project.

The DEIR provides flawed impacts analysis of the effects of habitat loss on individual species. For example, it writes (p. 3.3-23) “Direct impacts to loggerhead shrike resulting from habitat loss would be less than significant. The nesting habitat on the Project site is of low quality and abundant suitable habitat is present in the Project vicinity, …” However, the statement contrives a distinction between nesting habitat and other habitat that does not exist in nature, as all habitat is critical to breeding success. Note that the DEIR neglects to characterize loggerhead shrike nesting habitat as opposed to some other type of habitat. Additionally, the statement invokes the term “habitat quality” in a manner that is not used in wildlife ecology, as habitat quality is typically measured by reproductive metrics connoting breeding success or productivity; unless Dudek measured productivity of loggerhead shrikes, the DEIR’s use of the term habitat quality is unsupported. Based on my experience (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021), the project site looks like loggerhead shrike habitat.

The DEIR makes the same claims of abundant habitat in the project area regarding coastal whiptail and Crotch’s bumble bee. Rather than acting as judge over the sufficiency of habitat that would remain in the area following project construction, the DEIR should instead predict the numbers of each species that would be lost to the project.

Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had 32 originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects to wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well.

Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in net loss of productive capacity (Smallwood 2015). This loss of capacity can be predicted (Smallwood 2022), starting with two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes, which supported total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. These 2 study sites differed from the project site by including more woodland and wetland, so I assumed the nest density at the project site is half the densities of the two study sites. Multiplying

17.15 nests/acre against 51.34 acres would predict a loss of 880 bird nest sites. Assuming

1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species I asked Noriko to review, then I predict the project would cost California 1,223 nest attempts/year.

The loss of 880 nest sites and 1,223 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the DEIR. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 3,547 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 3,899 birds per year denied to California.

The loss of 3,899 birds per year would be both substantial and highly significant. Most if not all of these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. Therefore, the DEIR should be withdrawn from public circulation and 33 revised to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to birds resulting from the reduction of avian productive capacity caused by habitat loss.

Artificial Light Impacts on Wildlife

The project would add nighttime lighting to illuminate extensive parking areas and other project features. Though minimized by downward shielding, some level of the added lighting would penetrate adjacent scrubland bordering the project site, illuminating surface areas normally traversed by nocturnal wildlife that rely on darkness for stealth. Penetrating light would also generate stark light/shadow contrasts that can be confusing to wildlife. Artificial lighting causes a variety of substantial impacts on a variety of wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006), including interference with circadian rhythm, disruption of foraging activity, disruption of movement patterns, navigational interference and lethal attraction of flying birds, and altered development of eggs and juveniles/larvae. Added lighting could cause displacement or altered activity patterns of at least some species, resulting in habitat degradation and additional habitat loss. The DEIR provides no analysis of any of these types of impacts, and makes no predictions of the extent of light penetration into wildlife habitat nor of habitat loss resulting from light pollution. The DEIR needs to be revised to analyze impacts resulting from habitat loss that would result from project-generated light pollution.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT

The DEIR (p. 3.3-12) asserts, “Wildlife is much more likely to depend on this adjacent habitat (i.e., COSCA and unnamed drainage) than the Project site, for local, largescale movement.” And (p. 3.3-33), “Although the vegetation present on the Project site could provide move-through habitat, because the Project site is highly disturbed, subject to regular human use, including off-road vehicles, and adjacent to development, wildlife is expected to preferentially utilize the higher quality habitat present in the open space to the north and west for movement and dispersal.” Yet, Dudek (2024) reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether or how wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. There was no sampling regime or program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them.

Based on what is reported, Dudek (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in any way. The DEIR’s conclusions regarding wildlife movement on the project site are purely speculative and conclusory.

Even in its disturbed state, the ground cover of the project site readily accommodates passage by wildlife. The project would block wildlife movement another 219 m west of the City’s Municipal Service Center, and by filling the vacant space between existing warehouses and the Service Center, it would extend the blockage to wildlife movement by 795 m. The project would also fragment the riparian area south of the Municipal Service Center – the same area where California gnatcatchers have been detected, as well as where we saw Cooper’s hawk and California thrashers.

34 TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 40―43), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

Photo 40. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such
road crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the animal.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 41. Great-tailed grackle (left) walks onto a
rural road in Imperial County, 4 February 2022.

Photo 42. A mourning dove
(right) killed by vehicle traffic on a
California road. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

35 Photo 43. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

While I was at the project site, I saw multiple cars
and trucks driven at dangerously fast speeds to
and from existing industrial buildings. I observed
cars and trucks rounding curves along the
project’s roads at speeds that in my opinion not
only endanger human pedestrians, but also any
wild animal attempting to walk, run or fly across
the road. Snakes and lizards would be particularly
vulnerable. I also saw local wildlife crossing the road (Photos 44 and 45), some of which were nearly struck and killed. Existing environmental conditions are already dangerous to wildlife that must cross the roads.

Photos 44 and 45. A California thrasher – a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern – prepares to dash across Conejo Center Drive, right where the road snakes between the two southern parcels of the project, 8 March 2022. The thrasher followed through with its dash at great risk of being crushed by a speeding vehicle.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and

36 searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife

The DEIR predicts 23,192 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which translates to 8,465,080 annual VMT. These would be many miles driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating. Despite the obvious risks to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, and despite my comments on this issue in response to the IS/MND prepared for the same project in 2022, the DEIR does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 3,600 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to 37 project-generated traffic. This level of mortality would qualify as a significant impact, and based on my review of the DEIR, it would be an unmitigated impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The DEIR does not provide much of a cumulative impacts analysis, and the analysis it does provide is flawed. After defining the source of cumulative impacts as past, present and foreseeable future projects, the DEIR skips over past projects as if they never happened. In fact, past projects contributed to a stretch of Thousand Oaks development extending northwest into natural wildlands, substantially fragmenting habitat and interfering with wildlife movement. The nature of the development, with warehouses located on the highest elevations of its northwest extent, results in trucks driving at high speeds downhill along Rancho Conejo Blvd and other arterial roads connecting to US 101. Forcing trucks onto steeply graded roads puts wildlife at greater risk, as loaded trucks headed downhill are less likely to slow or stop for wildlife. The cumulative impacts analysis should be revised to include the contributions of cumulative effects from past projects.

Specific to biological resources, the DEIR’s analysis is limited to nesting birds. At p. 3.3- 39, the DEIR asserts, “Impacts to nesting birds for the proposed project and the related projects would be below the level of significance with the compliance with regulations protecting nesting birds. In addition, it is also anticipated that the other related projects would implement similar mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis as determined by project-specific environmental review to reduce individual project impacts, if any.” This assertion, however, is at odds with the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), where they state, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DEIR does not do this. Moreover, as I commented earlier, the projects that Noriko and I included in our BACI study of the effects of development on wildlife had also presumably complied with regulations protecting birds (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). Despite having presumably complied with the regulations, the development projects we studied caused measured declines of 75% of grassland bird species and 53% of raptor species, as well as a 91% reduction in overall bird abundance.

The evidence in Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) soundly refutes the DEIR’s assertion.

At p. 3.3-39, the DEIR continues, “The proposed Project is expected to have an impact on sensitive biological resources, which could add to cumulative impacts within the region; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 during the proposed Project, and the implementation of appropriate mitigation during construction of each of the projects listed above, cumulative biological impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.” Again, however, this assertion is not supported by the findings of Smallwood and Smallwood (2023). The DEIR requires the same types of mitigation measures as had been required of the projects studies by Smallwood and Smallwood (2023). All of the environmental review documents that had been prepared for these other projects had likewise claimed that the mitigation measures would reduce 38 impacts to wildlife to less than significant levels, but none of the claims were supported by any measurement of mitigation efficacy.

MITIGATION

Should the project go forward, more substantial mitigation measures would be needed.

The DEIR’s required mitigation measures would minimize project impacts by no more than trivial degrees, and would not address the much more substantial impacts of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, interference with wildlife movement, wildlife- vehicle collision mortality, and cumulative effects.

BIO-1 (Worker Education Awareness Program (WEAP)): … all personnel … shall attend a worker education awareness program conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-2 (Biological Monitoring): The Project Applicant shall fund a City-approved Biological Monitor during the initial vegetation removal or grading activities in undeveloped areas to monitor those activities and to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures. … shall implement and monitor any required no-disturbance buffers for Crotch’s bumble bee and/or nesting birds based on the results of pre- construction surveys conducted under MM-BIO-7 and MM-BIO-9.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-3 (Demarcation of Disturbance Limits): Prior to commencement of initial vegetation removal and grading, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated using high-visibility construction fencing.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-4 (Master Fuel Management Plan and Conejo Dudleya Habitat Enhancement): … each year, a Master Fuel Management Plan … shall be prepared by a City-approved restoration ecologist or qualified biologist in coordination with the Project Applicant’s landscape architect and submitted to the Community Development Department, Fire Department, and the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency for review and approval prior to Fire abatement work being conducted. …Should accidental clearing outside of grading limits result in loss of Conejo dudleya individuals and/or loss of occupied habitat, the Project Applicant shall commit to off- 39 site in-kind habitat enhancement at a 3:1 ratio to achieve no net loss of special-status plant species habitat.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-5 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan): …shall develop a project- specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requiring erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction and submit the SWPPP to the City for review and approval. ….

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-6 (Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Weed Control Plan): … shall retain a City-approved restoration ecologist or qualified biologist to prepare a comprehensive Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Weed Control Plan (IPSP & WCP) in coordination with the Project Applicant’s landscape architect. The IPSP & WCP shall be implemented within the landscaped areas of the Project to minimize invasive plant species and weed invasion into open space areas. The IPSP & WCP is to be implemented during construction and for a period of up to 5 years post- development …

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-7 (Crotch’s Bumble Bee Pre-Construction Surveys): A preconstruction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee shall be conducted within the construction footprint prior to the start of initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities occurring during the Crotch’s bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31) to determine if nests for Crotch’s bumble bee are located within the construction … shall include 1) a habitat assessment and 2) focused surveys, both of which will be based on recommendations described in the “Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species,” released by the CDFW on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. ... The measure goes on to detail the standards of survey in the CDFW (2023) guidelines.

The obtaining of a take permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure. Also, the available survey guidelines for Crotch’s bumble bee (CDFW 2023) need to be implemented prior to the public circulation of the DEIR, not afterwards as a preconstruction survey.

Detection surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee are intended to inform the CEQA review, but the DEIR inaccurately presents the surveys as a mitigation measure.

40 BIO-7 describes what should be done to complete the habitat assessment and focused surveys, which reportedly were already completed. However. The DEIR does not include any technical report of the focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee at the project site, so I cannot comment on whether or how well the CDFW (2023) guidelines were implemented.

No additional survey is needed to establish whether Crotch’s bumble bee is present on the project site. Crotch’s bumble bee was found on the project site; it is present. The question now is whether take would be allowed by CDFW for this Candidate Endangered Species under CESA. Because this measure’s implementation depends on whether the CDFW allows take of Crotch’s bumble bee, the DEIR should be removed from public circulation until it is known whether the CDFW would issue an Incidental Take Permit and under what circumstances it would do so. The public and decision- makers should be made aware of whether the attainment of an ITP is even possible.

BIO-8 (Special-Status Reptile Pre-Construction Survey): A preconstruction survey for coastal whiptail shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist (someone who has more than three years of experience of conducting coastal whiptail surveys and monitoring coastal whiptail habitat in the Project region) ... If coastal whiptail is observed on the Project site, a salvage and relocation plan for this species shall be developed and submitted to the City for review and approval. The plan shall be implemented to allow a City-approved qualified biologist to capture and relocate the species to suitable habitat outside of the impact footprint prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities. The results of special-status reptile pre-construction surveys shall be documented in a letter report that will be submitted to the City and CDFW.

This measure should be implemented if the project goes forward. However, it must be understood that the biologist would capture and relocate only a small fraction of the coastal whiptails that occur on site. Furthermore, the relocation of captured whiptails could cause adverse impacts to coastal whiptails in the receiving areas, as whiptails maintain territories and are likely at carrying capacity wherever they occur. Without compensatory mitigation as well, this measure would not achieve much in the way of conservation benefits for coastal whiptails, and it would do nothing to prevent the permanent loss of 51.34 acres f habitat and the loss of movement capacity across the project site.

BIO-9 (Nesting Bird Avoidance Survey): Project construction shall be conducted in compliance with the conditions set forth in the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests. To the maximum extent feasible, vegetation removal shall occur during the non-breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors. If the Project requires that work be initiated during the breeding season for nesting birds (February 1–August 31) or nesting raptors (January 1–June 30), in order to avoid direct impacts to active nests, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted in the study area by a City-approved qualified biologist (someone who has more than three years of experience of conducting nesting bird surveys and monitoring active nests in the Project region) for nesting birds and raptors within 7 days prior to initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities. … If the City- 41 approved qualified biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, or breeding activities substantially disrupted by the initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities, the City-approved qualified biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. …The buffer shall be a minimum of 100 feet for nonspecial- status passerine species, 200 feet for special-status passerine species, and 300 feet for nesting raptors (distances may be greater depending on the bird species and construction activity, as determined by the City-approved qualified biologist).

Construction can proceed within the buffer when the City-approved qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active.

Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey achieves very little. Preconstruction, take- avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult because birds are highly adept at concealing their nests. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season. To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort than a single survey only days prior to the start of construction. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey.

One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities.

Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests that might be salvaged are only the nests of the year. Even if nests are found in a preconstruction survey, the nests might be salvaged, but the nest sites cannot be protected. Many birds demonstrate considerable fidelity to nest sites by returning to use them year after year. Whereas a nest might be salvaged, the nest site would not survive project construction. All subsequent years of on-site productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey. The impacts to nesting birds are not avoided merely with detection and salvage.

Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and duration of protection for any given species. This measure lacks sufficient objective criteria, and is unenforceable. 42 BIO-10 (Lighting): To prevent illumination of wildlife habitats, construction activities shall be limited to the time between dawn and dusk. If construction activity time restrictions are not possible, down shielding or directional lighting will be used to avoid light trespass into adjacent natural open space areas ... Exterior lighting on finished buildings shall be designed to minimize upward-directed lighting …

This measure would not prevent all light from penetrating adjacent wildlands.

Compensatory mitigation ought to be provided for the level of impact that cannot be avoided, and this level of impact needs to be estimated.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Detection Surveys: Protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented for additional special-status species, and most especially for burrowing owl (CDFW 2012).

Ground squirrels occur at the site, so there is a heightened likelihood that burrowing owls also live there. Also, eBird reports burrowing owls within close proximity to the site.

Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. An equal or greater area of open space should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with project-generated traffic.

Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping 43 with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089

Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

City of Thousand Oaks. 2022. Conejo Summit Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by ESA for City of Thousand Oaks, California.

Dudek. 2024. Biological resources technical report Conejo Summit. Prepared for Thousand Oaks Master, LLC, Porter Ranch, California.
44 ESA. 2022. Draft Conejo Summit Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Prepared for City of Thousand Oaks, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Rich, C., and T. Longcore. 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.

Island Press, Covelo, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

45 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

Smallwood, N. L., and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native-plant landscaping in residential yards to birds during the nonbreeding period. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J.

Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Sørenson, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. 5:1–34.

Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist

Expertise

• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;

• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;

• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education

Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results

Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV

2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV

3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects

Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV

4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV

5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV

6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV

7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844

Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 1 Scott Kolwitz
From: Steven Piepkorn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:44 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz; City Clerk Department
Subject: GSEJA Public Comment: Conejo Summit Project EIR, Thousand Oaks Planning Commission Public Hearing 9/8/2025
Attachments: GSEJA_Conejo Summit Comment Letter_FINAL_20250904 (1).pdf; Comments on Conejo Summit Project EIR (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom It May Concern,

Please disregard the first email that was sent on Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 10:18 PM PT, the below and attached content replace the original ones that were sent.

Attached and below are public comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

These comments are submitted to the Planning Commission to be included in the record for the Conejo Summit Project EIR during its Public Hearing on 9/8/25.

For clarification purposes, only BOLD portion of the body of this email is the public comment to be added into the record along with TWO attachments.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Public Comment:

Hello, my name is Steven Piepkorn and I’m with the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

We submitted a comment letter to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our letter identified several deficiencies with the EIR.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 During these turbulent times, we as citizens expect and deserve our local government’s elected and appointed officials to protect us from environmental and social injustice, to aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in which we all share, and to ensure accountability and responsibility regarding the environmental decisions they may make.

We stand by our comment letter and believe the EIR is flawed, and a new EIR must be drafted and circulated for public review. In closing we call on this Commission to be a leader on the aforementioned issues and be the first line of defense for our citizenry and environment. Only by working together can we continue to be excellent stewards of our environment, outstanding stewards to our citizens and each other. Thank you.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you.

Steven Piepkorn

Green Jobs & Clean Communities 4 September 2025 Planning Commission City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Re: Conejo Summit Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH 2023020425 Planning Commission Members, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) has presented arguments regarding the aforementioned project in the form of a Comment Letter dated 8 January 2025, which objects to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and documents systematic California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations including project segmentation, inadequate environmental justice analysis, deficient General Plan consistency review, insufficient growth-inducing impacts evaluation, and failure to address cumulative impacts on a disadvantaged community already experiencing severe pollution burdens. The project site is located in census tract 6111006100, which ranks worse than 82% of California in overall pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, with 99th percentile hazardous waste impacts, 95th percentile groundwater threats, and a diverse, disadvantaged community (39% Hispanic, 20% Asian-American, 2% African-American) with high rates of poverty (42%), low educational attainment (42%), and linguistic isolation (79%), while the EIR systematically ignores environmental justice impacts in this already overburdened disadvantaged community. Adding Industrial Pollution to California's Most Overburdened Community This industrial project would be built in census tract 6111006100, a community that already bears some of the most severe environmental burdens in the entire state of California. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency's CalEnviroScreen 4.0 analysis, this community suffers from: • 99th percentile for hazardous waste impacts - virtually no community in California faces higher exposure to hazardous waste facilities and contamination • 95th percentile for groundwater threats - indicating massive contamination of underground water sources 2 • 88th percentile for traffic impacts - showing dangerously high levels of truck traffic and vehicle pollution • 82nd percentile for low birth weight rates - reflecting the health toll of chronic pollution exposure on pregnant women and babies • 82% overall CalEnviroScreen score - clearly identifying this as a severely disadvantaged community under state law CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Data for Census Tract 6111006100, Source: California Environmental Protection Agency

3 Pollution burden map showing the project location (red square) within the context of surrounding pollution levels (darker areas indicating higher burden) Senate Bill (SB) 1000, California's environmental justice law, was specifically designed to protect communities like this from additional pollution burdens. The law requires local governments to identify disadvantaged communities and implement policies to reduce cumulative health risks rather than worsen them. Government Code Section 65302(h) mandates that local agencies "identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities" through measures including "reduction of pollution exposure" and "improvement of air quality." The EIR ignores these existing conditions and the local community's legal protections. It fails to provide any environmental justice analysis of how industrial truck traffic, manufacturing emissions, and round-the-clock operations will worsen health outcomes for residents who already face some of the worst pollution burdens and highest disease rates in California. This breaches CEQA's fundamental mandate under Public Resources Code Section 21001(b) to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water" and Section 21000(g) requiring "major consideration to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian."

4 Environmental Racism and the Cumulative Impact of Warehouse Concentration This industrial project continues a decades-long pattern of environmental racism that has systematically concentrated polluting facilities in communities of color and low-income areas while protecting wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods from industrial development. The EIR fails to acknowledge or analyze this pattern of discriminatory land use decisions. When a community already ranks in the 82nd percentile for pollution burden and 99th percentile for hazardous waste exposure, adding more industrial pollution sources is not just poor planning—it is a violation of civil rights and environmental justice.

Aerial photo of the project site showing its proximity to residential areas (Source: Google Maps) Critical CEQA Violations Ignored by the EIR GSEJA’s comprehensive technical review reveals critical deficiencies that the City has completely failed to address:

5 § Project Piecemealing Violation: the EIR provides no response whatsoever to our documentation that the project improperly segments environmental review by failing to analyze prerequisite land use amendments: o Resolution No. 2015-006 (adopted January 12, 2015) changed General Plan designation from Institutional to Industrial o Resolution No. 2015-067 (adopted October 20, 2015) changed land use from High Density Residential to Employment Park This violates CEQA Section 15378's definition of "project" as "the whole of an action" and constitutes unlawful piecemealing. § Complete Absence of Environmental Justice Analysis: despite extensive documentation of severe community disadvantage, the Final EIR provides no environmental justice analysis whatsoever. This violates CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c) and perpetuates environmental racism. § Missing General Plan Consistency Analysis: The EIR fails to respond to our identification of missing consistency analysis with numerous General Plan policies, including: o Goal LU-1: Land use patterns that preserve neighborhoods and natural environment o Policy 1.2: Complete community development o Goal C-10: Environmental air quality protection o Goals S-6, S-7: Climate change resilience § Inadequate Growth-Inducing Impacts Analysis: the Final EIR ignores our demonstration that the project significantly exceeds planned growth: o 985 employees is 3.5 times the 275 Manufacturing jobs planned in the 2045 General Plan o Project represents 42.3% of the City's total employment growth projected through 2050 o Project adds 16.03 acres of Employment Park uses not analyzed in Specific Plan No. 7 § Unenforceable Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation: the EIR fails to address how VMT reduction measures will be enforced across unknown future tenants over the project's multi-decade lifespan. § Inconsistent Project Description: the EIR fails to resolve the fundamental inconsistency regarding 37,377 cubic yards of required material import despite claims of "no import or export." 6 § Deficient Energy Analysis Methodology: the EIR fails to address our identification that the energy analysis uses CalEEMod, which is not among the three California Energy Commission-approved compliance modeling software programs (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, IES VE) required for non-residential buildings under the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The City's defense of CalEEMod for CEQA analysis does not address the fundamental issue of using non-approved software for Title 24 compliance evaluation. § Improperly Deferred Transportation Safety Analysis: the EIR fails to address our concerns about deferring critical safety analysis to the permitting phase, including truck turning movements, emergency access design, and compliance with safety standards. While the City claims these standards exist, this does not resolve the CEQA violation of deferring environmental analysis that should inform decision-makers before project approval. Concealing Health Threats from Environmental Justice Community The EIR's failure to conduct any environmental justice analysis is particularly egregious given the severe existing health burdens in this community. Independent analysis reveals that any additional pollution in a community with a: § 99th percentile hazardous waste exposure § 95th percentile groundwater contamination § 82nd percentile low birth weight rates § High poverty and linguistic isolation represents a magnified health threat that the EIR completely ignores. Children who already struggle with pollution-related health problems face exponentially greater harm from additional industrial emissions than children in clean-air communities. Recommendation The Planning Commission must reject the inadequate EIR that violates SB 1000 and CEQA environmental justice requirements and require preparation of a revised EIR that includes: § Comprehensive environmental justice analysis addressing cumulative impacts on this severely disadvantaged community § Complete project description including all prerequisite land use amendments § General Plan consistency analysis for all applicable policies § Honest assessment of growth-inducing impacts that exceed planned development 7 § Enforceable mitigation measures with specific implementation and monitoring mechanisms § Meaningful community engagement as required by SB 1000 The Planning Commission should conduct meaningful community engagement and outreach, as required by SB 1000, including holding public workshops (in both English and Spanish) accessible to community members at convenient hours, as well as partner with trusted and rooted community organizations and canvass affected neighborhoods on foot, as a way to meet the requirements of SB 1000, as well as understanding the ramifications of implementing such a large scale change in an impacted community. Additionally, the Planning Commission should also consider implementing enhanced mitigation measures that protect community health, such as embarking on zero emission vehicle requirements for all project-related traffic, prioritizing local community member employment, and provide health monitoring and reporting systems to reduce the impact of these types of projects, both now and in the future. Conclusion Due to the above-mentioned reasons as well as the reasons listed in the original comment letter to the EIR, GSEJA believes the EIR flawed, and fails to meet CEQA's fundamental requirements for environmental justice communities. A revised EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review. The health of our children and the future of our community are in your hands. Onwards. Steven Piepkorn Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 765 N Main Street, Suite 151 Corona, CA 92880 +1 951 279 4697

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW AON CENTER 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 4880 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 572-0400 January 8, 2025 Scott Kolwitz Via Email to: Senior Planner [email protected] Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Subject: Comments on Conejo Summit Project EIR (SCH NO. 2023020425) Dear Mr. Kolwitz, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Conejo Summit Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. 1.0 Summary The project proposes the construction and operation of a 15 building industrial business park with building footprints that would cover approximately 754,222 square feet (SF) on 15 parcels on approximately 51.34 gross acres (49.57 net acres) within the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan (SP No. 7) planning area, which is within the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area. The buildings are proposed to operate entirely as Manufacturing facilities with ancillary supporting offices. Discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project include: 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps [2019-70440 (VTTM); 2019-70441 (VTTM)] 2. Development Permit, including modifications to maximum building height and setback from centerline of street [2019-70439 (DP)] 3. Protected Tree Permit (encroachment) [2021-71158 (PTP)] 4. Uniform Sign Program [2019-70442 (USP)] Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

2 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Piecemealing The EIR does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378). The project proposed by Conejo Summit is a piecemealed portion of the larger overall project, which required General Plan and Specific Plan No. 7 Amendments. A project EIR must be prepared that accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects to present unduly low environmental impacts. CEQA Section 15161 describes project EIRs as examining “the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” The specific development project is the planning, construction, and operation of the parcels involved in the Conejo Summit project. At minimum, piecemealed projects include the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments to change the the project site’s land use designations to accommodate the proposed industrial uses. Specifically, Resolution No. 2015-0061 was adopted on January 12, 2015 to change the General Plan designation of the project site within Planning Unit Q from Institutional to Industrial and change the Specific Plan land use designation from Conejo Valley High School Site to Employment Park. Resolution No. 2015-0672 was adopted on October 20, 2015 to change the land use designation of the project site within Planning Unit 5 from High Density Residential to Employment Park. Approval of these Resolutions was a necessary precedent for the proposed project. Piecemealing the necessary General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment actions for the project site misleads the public and decision makers by circumventing adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the whole of the action. Additionally, CEQA Section 15146 requires that the degree of specificity in an EIR “will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive 1 Resolution No. 2015-006 https://weblink.toaks.org/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=1008110&dbid=0&repo=CTO 2 Resolution No. 2015-067 https://weblink.toaks.org/WeblinkPublic/DocView.aspx?id=1125716&dbid=0&repo=CTO&cr=1 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

3 zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy.” Because there are multiple proposed buildings as part of a single project, the project EIR must be more detailed in the specific effects of the project. A project EIR must be prepared which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller phases, development projects, or areas to present unduly low environmental impacts. 3.0 Project Description The EIR is not internally consistent and is inadequate as an informational document. The EIR states that, “The proposed project would require approximately 156,186 cubic yards of cut and fill, which would be balanced on the site. As such, no import or export of materials is anticipated to occur.” However, Figure 2-5: Cut and Fill Grading Plan depicts the earthwork estimates to include 59,431 cubic yards of cut and 96,808 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net import (fill) of 37,377 cubic yards of material. The EIR must be revised to be consistent with the project grading plans and update each section of analysis throughout the document to utilize this information. 3.2 Air Quality, 3.5 Energy, and 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is in conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c), which requires that “Economic, social, and particularly housing factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR. If information on these factors is not contained in the EIR, the information must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the project.” This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.03, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6111006100) ranks worse than 82% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including residences to the southeast, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than other census tracts in many pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 47th percentile for ozone burden, 41st percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, 55th percentile for diesel PM burdens, and 88th percentile for traffic impacts, which are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health 3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

4 conditions, even at low levels of exposure4. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer5. The census tract ranks in the 99th percentile for hazardous waste impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people6. The census tract ranks among the most severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality. The census tract ranks in the 95th percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes7. Accordingly, the census tract ranks in the 57th percentile for drinking water impacts, which indicates that it ranks with the worst quality drinking water in the state. Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state8. Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 39% Hispanic, 20% Asian-American, and 2% African-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 42% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 42% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care9. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution10. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution11. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 82nd percentile for incidence of low birth weights and 24th percentile 4 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 5 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate-matter 6 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 7 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 8 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 9 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

5 for incidence of cardiovascular disease. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 79% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result. The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares12 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod and spreadsheet-based modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project’s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software. 3.9 Land Use and Planning The EIR does not include a consistency analysis with all land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document and a revised EIR must be prepared with a consistency analysis with all General Plan policies, including the following: 1. Goal LU-1: Create a land use pattern of development that preserves existing neighborhoods while providing opportunities for targeted infill projects in strategic locations to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and ensure the long-term fiscal viability of Thousand Oaks. 2. Policy 1.1: Overall City structure. Establish a clearly defined urban pattern of development and open space by: Providing a supportive network of public uses throughout the City including parks, schools, libraries, and community centers. 3. Policy 1.2 Complete community. Strive to maintain a diverse and balanced mix of uses in the City, so that Thousand Oaks is a “complete community” with a diversity of housing for all stages of life and income levels; improve alignment of educational attainment opportunities with high-paying employment opportunities, open space, public facilities that meet residents ’needs, and retail and services to support daily life. 4. Goal LU-8: Support high-quality and visually interesting design and construction of all buildings throughout the City. 12 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency-1 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

6 5. Policy 8.1 Quality design and materials. Require simple, urban building forms made with permanent, high quality materials and architectural detailing. 6. Policy 8.2 Building entrances. Use visual and physical features within a building’s design and entries to emphasize the building entrance and connection to public spaces. 7. Policy 8.3 Public gathering spaces. Encourage public and quasi-public gathering spaces within development that support community activities. 8. Policy 8.7 Crime prevention strategies. Implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, that include site design, mixtures of uses, lighting, nighttime security and other measures. 9. Policy 9.8 Minimize curb cuts. Require new commercial, residential and mixed-use development, to the extent possible, to have common driveways and/or service lanes serving multiple units, to minimize the number of curb cuts along any block to improve pedestrian safety. 10. Policy 17.6 Street network. As redevelopment occurs, encourage the construction of new roadways and upgrade existing roadways to include improved pedestrian and bicycle amenities to create a more fine-grained transportation network. 11. Goal M-4: Create a transportation system that will accommodate future growth that provides for all modes. 12. Policy 4.3 Congestion management. Proactively manage traffic operations and parking demand at major destinations and job centers. 13. Policy 4.5 Development standards. Use development review guidelines that define transportation analysis and site design requirements to address multimodal access needs, connections to the surrounding street and mobility network, and right-size the roadway to the context of future development and its surroundings. 14. Goal M-6: Create and maintain a transportation system that reduces impacts to the environment while leveraging sustainability innovations. 15. Policy 6.1 Decrease vehicle trips. Prioritize transportation and development investments and strategies that reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. 16. Policy 6.2 Decrease vehicle miles traveled. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and other micro-mobility transportation means, and transit enhancements. Encourage infill, mixed-use, and other land use development that locates resources and services near residents ’homes. 17. Goal POS-8: Expand and fund parks to keep pace with the City’s long-term growth. 18. Policy 8.3 On-site parks. Require development projects of greater than 10 acres in size to provide parks on-site. 19. Goal C-7: Connect wildlife habitat and wildlife populations.

Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

7 20. Policy 7.1 Wildlife movement corridors. Design urban land uses adjoining natural open space in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of wildlife and avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to wildlife movement corridors. 21. Goal C-10: Achieve and maintain air quality that protects public health, safety, and welfare for those who live or work in the City and for visitors. 22. Policy 10.1 Ambient air quality. Air quality should meet State and Federal standards, whichever are more protective, for human health. 23. Policy 10.2 Alternative transportation. City actions shall seek to reduce dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor vehicles by encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes and energy sources (e.g., transit, walking, bicycling) thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. 24. Policy 5.10 Fire protection for new development. Require that all new development have adequate fire protection and that development can be served with VCFD’s response time goal. 25. Goal S-6: Reduce community vulnerability to climate-related threats and increase community resilience. 26. Policy 6.4 Climate impacts. Consider climate change impacts including increased storm severity, drought and extreme heat in planning decisions, including those involving public infrastructure, urban forest, sidewalks, streets, utilities, facilities, and private development. 27. Goal S-7: A sustainable community with reduced energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. 28. Policy 7.2 Community emissions. Reduce community GHG emissions by at least the SB 32 target of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 relative to 2010. The EIR has not provided any information or analysis on the buildout conditions of the City’s 2045 General Plan. Table 2-1: Development Potential Analyzed in the EIR within the General Plan EIR13 states that the City will add 275 Manufacturing jobs through the 2045 horizon year and a total of 11,845 jobs overall. The project’s 985 employees exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario analyzed in its EIR by more than 3.5 times and represents 8.3% of the total new employment. These quantities are significant and exceed the City’s buildout for Manufacturing. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis and include a finding of significance as the project will induce growth in the area and exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario that was developed for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 13 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279173-2/attachment/HtDQPZbje3EqLCT3tI6HYeQEeoHLO4cP3T3hBNFYUwAhJtaA-C7lKDHVO14ZW_E_VONG2C3vAONJwV9Z0 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

8 The EIR also does not provide any information regarding the land use buildout of the General Plan or SP 7. As an example, the required land use changes in SP 7 increased the Employment Park area by 10.53 acres (Planning Area 5) and 5.5 acres (Planning Area Q), for a total of 16.03 acres. This quantity of Employment Park uses was not analyzed by SP 7 nor its EIR, and therefore exceeds the total buildout scenario of SP 7. Similarly, the proposed project exceeds the quantity of Manufacturing jobs analyzed in the 2045 General Plan EIR, indicating that it also exceeds the maximum allowable building square footage for Industrial and/or Manufacturing uses. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis and include a finding of significance as the project will induce growth in the area and exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario that was developed for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Further, the EIR does not discuss or provide any analysis of the Development Plan Permit’s request to deviate from development standards for maximum building height and setbacks from the centerline of the street. The Project Description states that, "the building heights would range from 37 to 41 feet above finished grade,” and, “As part of the Development Plan permit, the Municipal Code Section 9-4.1605 allows waivers requests to be considered by the decision-making body. The Project includes waivers for the increase height as identified in Table 2-1 and reduction of the 100-foot setback from centerline of adjacent streets down to a minimum of 52 feet for four properties (Building 1A (59 feet from the centerline of Conejo Summit; Building 5B (54 feet from the centerline of Rancho Conejo Boulevard); Building 4A (52 feet from the centerline of the future Academy Drive extension); 4B (63 feet from the centerline of from the future Academy Drive extension).” However, Municipal Code Section 9-4.1605 only discusses maximum height waivers and does not provide any information regarding building setbacks from the centerline of the street. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document as it does not provide information or analysis describing the reasoning that the project cannot comply with the applicable height and setback requirements. The EIR also does not provide the applicable Municipal Code Sections for deviating from required setbacks or any required findings for approval of either request. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental document. 3.12 Transportation The EIR concludes that daily employee VMT will be 23.5 VMT, which exceeds the threshold of 22.7 VMT per employee by 3.4%. The EIR implements Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-5 to allegedly achieve a reduction in employee vehicle trips and result in less than significant impacts. However, the EIR has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-5 will reduce project generated VMT Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

9 per employee to below the significance threshold of 22.7 VMT per employee continuously for the life of the project. Since future building tenants are unknown, implementation of trip reduction measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce Project generated VMT to a level of less than significant. It is not possible for the City as the Lead Agency to ensure that Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-5 will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured and the project’s VMT impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non-automobile travel associated with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-5 and mitigation of the project’s VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible. The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The EIR has excluded any specific truck/trailer turning exhibits from public review. There are no exhibits adequately depicting the available maneuvering and queueing space for trucks/trailers at the intersection of the project driveways and the adjacent streets. There are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding. The EIR states that, “The proposed vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and vehicular and bicycle parking facilities would be designed to comply with City of Thousand Oaks Community Development, Public Works, and Additionally, Ventura County Fire Protection District design and engineering standards regarding their width, geometry, placement, sight distance at the Project site.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). The EIR has not provided any details regarding the City of Thousand Oaks and/or Ventura County Fire Protection District standards for road development, stacking distances, or lines of sight, or meaningful analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with these requirements. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

10 significance as the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding. The EIR states regarding emergency access that, “The conceptual design of the internal access roads has been approved by the VCFD to provide for turning movements of larger deliver trucks, trash trucks, and fire/emergency vehicles.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). The EIR has not provided any details regarding the requirements for emergency access or meaningful analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with these requirements. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. The EIR also excludes the VCFD’s review of the project plans from public review, and incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the VCFD’s review contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding. 4.0 Alternatives The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.) The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project” alternative and only two others - Reduced Density Alternative and Increased Office Use, Decreased Manufacturing Use Alternative. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only two alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative are analyzed. The EIR does not include an alternative that analyzes development in accordance with the project site’s land use designations prior to the piecemealed changes. The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA § 15126.6). 5.1.4 Effects That Were Found Not to be Significant: Population and Housing The EIR utilizes uncertain language and does not provide any meaningful analysis or supporting evidence to substantiate the conclusion that there will be no significant impact to population and housing. The EIR states regarding construction employees that, “These short-term positions are anticipated to be filled primarily by construction workers who would be expected to commute to the Project site without relocating their residence and household to the Project area.” The EIR states regarding project operational employees that, “the Conejo Summit project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the City’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region, and the Conejo Summit project would not Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

11 stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans.” Relying on the workforce population of the entire region will increase project related VMT. Additionally, the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence to support the claim that the local workforce is available and suitable to fill the project’s construction or operational jobs, such as the unemployed workforce’s interest in or qualifications for work in the industrial sector. The EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding and must be revised to including a finding of significance. The EIR states that, “According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Demographics and Growth Forecast, the population growth of the City from 2016 to 2045 is projected to be approximately 15,200 residents, and the employment growth of the City is projected to be 9,900 employees (SCAG 2020). As such, the addition of approximately 985 employees for the Conejo Summit Project would represent a percentage of the City’s projected future population and employment, based on SCAG estimates.” This reasoning is used to support the claim that the project will not exceed growth above what is assumed in local and regional plans. However, this data is sourced from SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS while the rest of the EIR utilizes SCAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for internal consistency and adequate informational documents. SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast14 notes that the City will add 2,300 jobs from 2019 - 2050. Utilizing the EIR’s calculation of 985 employees, the project accounts for 42.3% of the City’s employment growth over a 31 year period, which is a significant amount of growth attributed to a single project. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2019 and projects “in the pipeline” to calculate the City’s cumulative progress towards SCAG and General Plan buildout. For example, Table 2-1: Development Potential Analyzed in the EIR within the General Plan EIR15 states that the City will add 275 Manufacturing jobs through the 2045 horizon year and a total of 11,845 jobs overall. The project’s 985 employees exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario analyzed in its EIR by more than 3.5 times and represents 8.3% of the total new employment. These quantities are significant and exceed the City’s buildout for Manufacturing. This information and analysis must be included in a revised EIR that includes a finding of significance as there is no feasible method to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 14 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 15 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279173-2/attachment/HtDQPZbje3EqLCT3tI6HYeQEeoHLO4cP3T3hBNFYUwAhJtaA-C7lKDHVO14ZW_E_VONG2C3vAONJwV9Z0 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

12 5.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts The EIR states that, “While the Project could promote growth in the local area, this is a planned development as discussed in the City of Thousand Oaks Rancho Conejo Specific Plan 7, the 2045 General Plan, and regional planning documents.” However, the proposed project exceeds the growth and buildout of the City’s 2045 General Plan and SCAG’s 2050 growth forecasts. The EIR has not provided any information or analysis on the buildout conditions of the City’s 2045 General Plan. Table 2-1: Development Potential Analyzed in the EIR within the General Plan EIR16 states that the City will add 275 Manufacturing jobs through the 2045 horizon year and a total of 11,845 jobs overall. The project’s 985 employees exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario analyzed in its EIR by more than 3.5 times and represents 8.3% of the total new employment. SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast17 notes that the City will add 2,300 jobs from 2019 - 2050. Utilizing the EIR’s calculation of 985 employees, the project accounts for 42.3% of the City’s employment growth over a 31 year period, which is a significant amount of growth attributed to a single project. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2019 and projects “in the pipeline” to calculate the City’s cumulative progress towards SCAG and General Plan buildout. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis and include a finding of significance as the project will induce growth in the area and exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario that was developed for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and will foster growth that exceeds local and regional plans. The EIR also does not provide any information regarding the land use buildout of the General Plan or SP 7. As an example, the required land use changes in SP 7 increased the Employment Park area by 10.53 acres (Planning Area 5) and 5.5 acres (Planning Area Q), for a total of 16.03 acres. This quantity of Employment Park uses was not analyzed by SP 7 nor its EIR, and therefore exceeds the total buildout scenario of SP 7. Similarly, the proposed project exceeds the quantity of Manufacturing jobs analyzed in the 2045 General Plan EIR, indicating that it also exceeds the maximum allowable building square footage for Industrial and/or Manufacturing uses. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate 16 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279173-2/attachment/HtDQPZbje3EqLCT3tI6HYeQEeoHLO4cP3T3hBNFYUwAhJtaA-C7lKDHVO14ZW_E_VONG2C3vAONJwV9Z0 17 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 Scott Kolwitz January 8, 2025 Page

13 environmental analysis and include a finding of significance as the project will induce growth in the area and exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario that was developed for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and will foster growth that exceeds local and regional plans. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. Sincerely, Gary Ho Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP Attachments: 1. SWAPE Technical Analysis

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
January 6, 2025
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Conejo Summit Project (SCH No. 2023020425) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the November 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Conejo Summit Project (“Project”) located in the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 15-building business park covering 754,222-square-feet (“SF”) and 1,663 parking stalls on the 51-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts is based upon inaccurate model inputs. The resulting emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to properly represent and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis, provided in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Modeling Data (“AQ & GHG Report”) as Appendix C to the DEIR, relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2022.1.1.8 (p. 3.2-22). CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all relevant values are inputted into the model, the Project’s emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters

2 are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the values selected.1 In March of 2022, we provided comments on the Project’s February 2022 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) wherein we outlined inaccuracies in the CalEEMod models used to estimate Project criteria air pollutant emissions. We found numerous occasions of the IS/MND’s model including information not substantiated in the IS/MND itself.

When reviewing the DEIR’s updated CalEEMod output files, we found that several model inputs were inconsistent with the information disclosed in the primary document. By including unsubstantiated inputs, the DEIR’s model may underestimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions. A further environmental review should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis to adequately evaluate the impacts that operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Underestimated Land Use Size
The DEIR provides the following table showing the proposed land uses, including 754,222-SF of industrial space at final buildout (see excerpt below) (p. 2-8, Table 2-1):

1 “CalEEMod User Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), April 2022, available at:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 10. 3 Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Conejo Summit Grading Revisions 10/2024 v2” model includes only 187,485-SF of “General Light Industry” (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 785).

Similarly to the IS/MND’s model, the AQ & GHG Report’s model includes underestimated land use inputs. The model underestimates the Project’s total proposed industrial land use area by 566,737-SF,

4 thereby failing to provide a comprehensive calculation of the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts.2
The land use size parameter is integral to CalEEMod, as it influences the default variables and emission factors utilized in the model's calculations. Square footage plays a key role in specific computations, such as estimating wall surface area for painting activities (e.g., volatile organic compound [“VOC”] emissions from architectural coatings) and determining the volume requiring heating or cooling (e.g., energy consumption impacts).3,4 Additionally, CalEEMod assigns distinct energy usage emission factors to each land use category.

The model fails to account for the full square footage of industrial land uses substantiated in the DEIR, leading to an underestimation of the Project’s construction-related emissions and rendering it unsuitable for evaluating the Project’s significance.

Unsubstantiated Construction Schedule
Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the “Conejo Summit Grading Revisions 10/2024 v2” model includes the following justification for changes to the default construction schedule (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 833).

The model includes the following construction schedule, incorporating manual changes referenced above (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 821).

The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 As shown above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:

2 Calculated: 754,222-SF proposed – 187,485-SF modeled = 566,737-SF of underestimated General Heavy Industry land use.
3 “Emission Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/04_Appendix%20C.pdf, Appendix C, p. C-6. 4 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p . 30.
5 Ibid., p. 10.

5 “Project Specific Construction Model Estimate” (Appendix C, pp. 833).

Regarding the Project’s anticipated construction duration, the DEIR states that the entire project would take approximately 10 years to complete, with each phase taking approximately 12 – 18 months (p. 2- 16). The DEIR clarifies that construction activities would include “(1) grading and site preparation; (2) building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coating activities,” and specifies that “[f]or 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” (p. 3.2-22).

The AQ & GHG Report’s sole construction model does not represent the information in the DEIR. The model’s construction schedule omits a site preparation phase, while the DEIR specifically mentions it.

Additionally, while the DEIR states that the modeling would include a construction end date of 2031, the model’s construction phase ends in 2026. Until the DEIR provides specific information regarding the individual construction phase lengths for each step of construction, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths that match the proposed construction end date of 2031.6
According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).7

By modeling a fraction of the total construction and including an unsubstantiated construction schedule, the model’s emissions estimates are not an accurate representation of the Project’s potential construction-related impacts. As the model inaccurately depicts the peak daily emissions associated with construction, the DEIR’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

6 See Attachment A for proportionately altered construction phase calculations. 7 “CalEEMod User Guide Version 2022.1.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 34, Table. 3.

6 Unsubstantiated Number of Worker, Vendor, and Hauling Trips Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Conejo Summit Grading Revisions 10/2024 v2” model includes changes to the construction-related trips and vehicle miles traveled screen (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 833).

The model consequently sets all construction-related worker, vendor, and hauling trips to zero, a result of the manual changes referenced above (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 823, 824).

Note: The table above has been redacted for reader consideration.

CalEEMod is designed to allow users to change defaults “provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 8 The justification provided for these changes in the “User Changes to Default Data” table above is:
“ Project Specific Assumptions: Calculated Emissions through EMFAC” (Appendix C, pp. 833).

Furthermore, the AQ & GHG Report provides the following worker, vendor, and hauling trip assumptions (see excerpt below) (pp. 142):

8 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p . 1 0.

7 Note: The table has been cropped to improve readability.

The reductions to the default construction trip numbers, however, lack substantial evidence. The construction trip values listed in the AQ & GHG Report’s table are neither cited in a source nor mentioned in the DEIR, making them unreliable estimates. Despite this, the model disregards these estimates by setting all worker, vendor, and hauling trips to zero. Until the DEIR provides reliable information to support these changes, the model should have left these values as default.

CalEEMod uses the vendor, worker, and hauling trip numbers to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.9 By omitting worker, vendor, and hauling trips from the emissions analysis, the models may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source construction-related emissions.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Construction Architectural Coating Area The CalEEMod output files for the “Conejo Summit Grading Revisions 10/2024 v2” model includes changes to the architectural coatings screen (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 833).

The model includes 140,614-SF of non-residential interior area coated due to the manual changes referenced above (see screenshot below) (Appendix C, pp. 825).

9 Ibid., p. 2.

8 The justification provided for these changes in the “User Changes to Default Data” table above is:
“ Project Specific Adjustment” (Appendix C, pp. 833).

The architectural coating area included in the model is unsubstantiated as the DEIR fails to mention or justify specific interior square footage to be painted. Consequently, as noted in our March 2022 letter, we are unable to verify the model’s claim that there will be 140,614-SF of non-residential interior area coated. Until this value is substantiated, the model should have left the value as default.

CalEEMod relies on architectural coating areas to estimate the Project’s VOC emissions from painting and reapplication activities.10 By inputting an unsubstantiated value for the interior surface area to be coated during construction, the model potentially underestimates the Project’s area-source emissions.

Until the changes referenced above are substantiated by the information in the DEIR, the models cannot be relied upon to determine Project significance. A revised EIR with an updated air quality analysis should be prepared to evaluate and, if necessary, further mitigate the Project’s potential air quality impacts on the environment.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

10 “Emission Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/04_Appendix%20C.pdf, Appendix C, p. C-22.

9 P
aul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(
949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characte
rization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large s olar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California d rinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of ga soline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout C alifornia.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the f ormer U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE u se, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate u se, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, r esults of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an en ergy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California an d New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that m et strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and r egulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring net works, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at milit ary bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development thr ough work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Te chnical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of d rinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation u nder the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to d etermine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of M edford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental ge ology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022

In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022

In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022

In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022

In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022

In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022

In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021

In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021

In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015

In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Kaushik serves as a Principal Engineer for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions and has been with the firm since 2008. He has over 22 years of transportation planning and engineering experience, which includes transportation systems analysis, multimodal mobility planning, highway operations, traffic safety, and travel‐demand modeling. He enjoys the technical aspects of the projects he manages, but also embraces the interaction with stakeholders, city officials, and the public. Most of all, he welcomes the challenge of finding solutions that improve mobility for all users.

RECENT EXPERIENCE

 Compton Station TOD Specific Plan, City of Compton ‐ Mr. Kaushik served as a Project Manager leading the evaluation of traffic and parking for the Compton Station TOD Specific Plan (and PEIR). His role included preparing a parking study as well as a traffic impact analysis in support of the environmental documentation (PEIR), which included both VMT analysis and intersection‐level LOS analysis to measure localized congestion effects.
 Eastern Avenue Multimodal Transportation Improvements, City of Los Angeles ‐ Mr. Kaushik served as Project Manager for the Eastern Avenue Multimodal Transportation Improvements project in the City of Los Angeles, leading the traffic and parking evaluation.  Slauson Corridor Transit Neighborhood Plan (TNP), City of Los Angeles ‐ Mr. Kaushik led the preparation of a transportation analysis as part of an EIR addendum. The City’s travel demand model was used to estimate vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per service population.
 Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, City of Simi Valley ‐ Mr. Kaushik served as Project Manager for the traffic impact analysis of the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan. Mr. Kaushik managed the traffic analysis tasks, which included developing the Mobility chapter of the Plan and evaluating CEQA (VMT) and non‐CEQA impacts of the land use and mobility plan using the City’s travel‐demand model.  General Plan and Specific Plan Circulation/Mobility Elements Mr.

Kaushik led the development of the following General Plan or Specific Plan Circulation Elements:
 City of Thousand Oaks
 City of Moorpark
 City of Ventura (in development)
 City of Santa Barbara (in development)
 City of Vernon West Vernon Specific Plan

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
California, Irvine, 2001

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 15     Total: 22

REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer (PE)
CA #72838, 2008

CORE DISCIPLINES
Transportation Planning
Multimodal Planning
Travel Demand Modeling
Transit

DEEPAK
KAUSHIK, PE
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER

Moving smarter, together.

Mr. Daly is a Senior Manager for Iteris’ Mobility Consulting Solutions. He has 21 years of public sector and professional consulting experience in transportation planning and has been with Iteris since 2006. Sean’s approach to planning puts people first to ensure access and connectivity rather than barriers and isolation. He is supported by Iteris’ focus to bring professional planning services to his clients through a broad array of knowledge, expertise, and experience.

RECENT EXPERIENCE

 CEQA Adaptive Mitigation Program, VCOG ‐ Mr. Daly served as Project Manager leading development of a regional adaptive management program for transportation to streamline the CEQA process by providing a wider range of VMT reduction strategies and mitigation options, consistent methodology and standards for VMT reduction analysis and monitoring, credible substantial evidence for CEQA transportation analysis, and an in‐lieu fee mechanism.

 Valley Blvd Transportation Improvement Project, City of Los Angeles Mr. Daly is the Project Manager and Traffic Analysis Lead for the Valley Blvd Multi‐Modal Transportation Improvement Project which envisions transformative corridor improvements for all modes of transportation, including auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian activities along the corridor.

 General Plan and Specific Plan Circulation/Mobility Elements Mr.

Daly led technical tasks for the development of the following General Plan Circulation/Mobility Elements:
 City of Ojai (in development)
 City of Moorpark
 City of Ventura (in development)
 City of Santa Barbara (in development)
 City of Manhattan Beach CA
 City of Long Beach CA
 City of South Pasadena
 City of Vernon West Vernon Specific Plan

 Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, City of Simi Valley ‐ Mr. Daly served as a Task Lead for the traffic impact analysis of the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan. Mr. Daly supported in development of the Mobility chapter of the Plan as well as evaluation of CEQA (VMT) and non‐CEQA impacts of the land use and mobility plan using the City’s travel‐ demand model.

EDUCATION
MCP, City Planning, University of
Pennsylvania, 2002

BA, Geography, University of
California, Los Angeles, Minor in
Public Policy, 1998

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
With Iteris: 17     Total: 21

REGISTRATIONS
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
AICP #021297
Professional Transportation Planner
(PTP)
PTP #23
Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC®)
TWIC #1107253

CORE DISCIPLINES
Transportation Planning
Traffic Engineering & Operations
Goods Movement

AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association (APA)
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) Transportation and
Development Institute (T&DI)

SEAN
DALY, AICP, PTP
SENIOR MANAGER

Maya Bouchet, AICP
Maya is a transportation planner with experience in traffic studies and traffic engineering projects. She has prepared traffic studies for a broad range of projects including proposed developments and feasibility for new roadway
design projects. She serves as the lead for On-Call Traffic Engineering Contracts across Southern California, where she prepares a wide range of services for cities including traffic study development and peer review of traffic studies.

Relevant Experience
City of Glendale, La Crescenta Road Traffic Study, Glendale, CA – Project Manager Kimley-Horn prepared a Traffic Study to evaluate the feasibility of repurposing travel lanes to accommodate bike lanes on La Crescenta Avenue in Glendale, CA. The Traffic Study provided inventory of existing land uses, reviewed collision data, parking inventory, segment level of service (LOS), intersection LOS, and the opportunities and benefits of different proposed cross sections. Kimley-Horn recently provided the City with supplemental video simulations of the proposed improvements to provide visuals for stakeholder engagement.

City of Glendale, Local Transportation Analysis Review, Glendale, CA – Project Manager As part of the On-Call Traffic Engineering Services Contract, Kimley-Horn reviews the Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) Scoping Letters and LTA Reports for the City of Glendale. The proposed development projects vary in size and proposed land use type. Kimley-Horn's review focuses on several aspects of the study including consistency with the City’s guidelines and industry best practices.

City of Monterey Park, Monterey Pass Road Complete Streets, Monterey Park, CA – Planning & Outreach Lead Kimley-Horn is currently designing the Monterey Pass Road Complete Streets Project. The initial stage of the project included a robust outreach and planning phase, wherein the Kimley-Horn team conducted a series of four community meetings to gain stakeholder input. This was paired with a comprehensive planning document which reviewed the corridor for existing conditions and opportunities to integrate complete streets improvements including pedestrian enhancements, bike lanes, landscape design elements, technology deployment, and safety improvements. The report included a LOS analysis, which modeled changes to the roadway including removal of a travel lane in each direction to accommodate a bike lane facility on Monterey Pass Road. Based on the results of the comprehensive corridor study and community outreach, Kimley-Horn brought the preferred concept to City Council for their approval and gained consensus to move forward with design.

City of Palm Springs, South Palm Canyon and Racquet Club Road Reconfiguration and Traffic Studies, Palm Springs, CA – Project Manager
Kimley-Horn is supporting the City of Palm Springs in two road reconfiguration projects, which integrate complete streets improvements such as sidewalk gap closures and bike facilities on two notable corridors. The two corridors are primarily residential and serve as connectors to key destinations in the City. A comprehensive corridor study was prepared in conjunction with an extensive outreach program to gain stakeholder feedback and review traffic data to determine the feasibility of bike lanes and repurpose travel lanes on these two corridors. The studies included review of the existing conditions along the corridor including speed data, crash data, parking inventory, emergency response, and traffic counts. Kimley-Horn prepared a traffic analysis, along with recommendations for signal timing and operational enhancements on the corridor and potential design alternatives for community feedback. Kimley-Horn conducted seven outreach meetings, reviewing more than five different concepts for each corridor. Based on community feedback, a preferred alternative was selected for each corridor and is currently under design.

Professional Credentials Bachelor of Science, Policy, Planning and Development, University of Southern California American Institute of Certified Planners #34252

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) – SGV Forward: Demonstration Bus Lane & Transit Signal Priority Projects Traffic & Parking Studies, Monrovia, CA – Project Manager Kimley-Horn is supporting SGVCOG in providing the planning studies, outreach, and conceptual engineering for five demonstration bus lane and transit signal priority corridors across the San Gabriel Valley (SGV). This work builds upon a two-phase Feasibility Study, wherein Kimley-Horn worked with SGVCOG to develop a near-term, mid-term, and long-term plan to create high-quality transit service in the SGV, specifically near the southern region. To review the feasibility of bus lanes segments in five different jurisdictions, Kimley-Horn has prepared traffic and parking studies. These studies review roadway modification involving repurposing of parking or travel lanes to accommodate the bus lanes. The studies involve five separate jurisdictions and include assessment of consistency with local plans and policies, land use designation, and operational thresholds and standards set by each city. Kimley-Horn has submitted the reports and is currently in the process of preparing for community outreach, which will serve as a fundamental part of project development.

City of Calabasas – On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Calabasas, CA – Project Manager Kimley-Horn has been serving the City of Calabasas on the On-Call Traffic Engineering Services in a wide range of different task orders. Kimley-Horn has developed signing and striping plans for a bike lane project on Lost Hills Road and coordinated with Caltrans to get the project implemented. Additionally, Kimley-Horn has assisted the City with outreach for roundabout and intersection treatments to educate the community on the design and benefits of roundabout implementation. Kimley-Horn is currently working with the City of Calabasas to upgrade and modernize their central traffic management system to allow for remote access to all signalized intersections across the City. This work also involves coordination with a regional fiber project with the neighboring cities in the Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments.

City of Inglewood, Inglewood On-Call Engineering Services, Inglewood, CA – Transportation Lead Kimley-Horn provides a wide range of services to the City of Inglewood as part of the On-Call Engineering Services Contract including traffic engineering, civil design, landscape architecture, and staff augmentation disciplines. As part of this effort, Kimley-Horn has helped the City develop their traffic signal, signing and striping, and communication guidelines and standard specifications for other projects within the City of Inglewood. Kimley-Horn is currently leading a bike path connection project which will help provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the newly finished Metro K Line. Under the On-Call, Kimley-Horn has also developed traffic engineering studies and reviewed studies on behalf of the City.

City of Santa Clarita, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Santa Clarita, CA – Transportation Lead Kimley-Horn supports the City of Santa Clarita as part of their On-Call Traffic Engineering Services Contracts.

Projects under the On-Call Contract include developing traffic and engineering studies, preparing traffic signal and communication plans, creating signal timing modifications, and creating signing and striping improvements throughout the City.

THOUSAND OAKS

PLANNING COMMISSION

Supplemental
Information
Packet 2
September 8, 2025
Agenda Related Items
Meeting of September 8, 2025

Supplemental Information:

Any agenda-related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically they are distributed on t he Thursday or Friday preceding the Planning Commission meeting and/or on Monday before the meeting. Supplemental Packets on Thursday or Friday are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). All Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the Planning Commission on the City’s website www.toaks.gov.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the Planning Division, (805) 449-2500.

Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City in ensuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

To: Planning Commission

From: Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director

Date: September 8, 2025

Subject: Regarding Item 07A – Conejo Summit Project 2022-70771-EIR Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2023020425) , 2019-70439-DP Development Permit (DP), 2019-70440-VTTM/2019-70441 -VTTM Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), 2021-71158-PTP Protecte d Tree Permit (PTP), 2019-70442-USP Uniform Sign Program (USP), 2019-70443-LPC Landscape Plan Check (LPC)

The attached contains two technical memoranda from City consultants and public correspondence that arrived after posting and distr ibuting the Agenda and several staff responses thereto.

cdd:420-46/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2025/2025-09-08 Meeting/Supplemental/Supplemental 2.pdf/Supplemental 2 Memo.pdf/pz [FILE ID: 2019-70439-DP ]

kimley-horn.com 660 S Figueroa St, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-261-4040

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mark Anthony Bueno, PE, City of Thousand Oaks
From:

Jean Fares, PE, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Maya Bouchet, AICP, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: September 5, 2025
Subject: Shapell Traffic Study

Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. (Kimley-Horn) prepared a Traffic Study (dated March 27, 2024) for the proposed Shapell Development project located in the City of Thousand Oaks. The proposed project totals approximately 754,222 square feet of industrial park space. The Traffic Study analyzed the Shapell Development and its effects on following four neighboring signalized intersections:
 Rancho Conejo Boulevard / Hillcrest Drive
 Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road at Hillcrest Drive
 Ventu Park Road / Hillcrest Drive
 Broadbeck Drive/ Camino Dos Rios
The study was prepared with information provided by the City’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (TIMF) to address the traffic-related effects of the proposed Shapell Development. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project were based on the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Study included a description of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project area, estimated project trip generation and distribution, future traffic growth, and an assessment of project-related effects on the roadway system.

Kimley-Horn conducted the assessment using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology and the City’s analysis standards.

Based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated September 2025, the findings and conclusions of the Traffic Study remain valid.

Iteris, Inc.| 1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To:  City of Thousand Oaks  From:  Iteris, Inc.
801 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Date:  September 8, 2025

RE:  Shapell Conejo Summit Industrial Project –EIR Response to Comments Review Confirmation

The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm Iteris’ review of the Conejo Summit Industrial project’s Environmental  Impact  Report  (EIR)  Response  to  Comments.  Iteris’  role  on  the  project  consisted  of preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis using the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric. Iteris has reviewed all comments and City responses related to the VMT analysis and concurs with the City’s responses.

Conejo Summit Project 1 ESA / D20170220.03
Final Environmental Impact Report September 2025

Response to
Letter 1
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility -
Received September 3, 2025; Dated January 9, 2025

The comment letter provided by Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), dated January 9, 2025, states that a previous comment latter, also dated January 9, 2025, inadvertently included a 2022 report from Dr. Smallwood that addressed the Project’s 2022 mitigated negative declaration and that SAFER was including a new report from Dr. Smallwood, dated January 4, 2025 (“2025 Smallwood report”).

The comments provided by SAFER, which were the subject of responses provided in the Final EIR, have not been revised and are identical to those provided in the original January 9, 2025 comment letter. As a result, SAFER’s comments continue to contain some incorrect information identified in the Chapter 9 Response to Comments to letter IND-4.

The 2025 Smallwood report is very similar to the 2022 report previously attached to SAFER’s comment letter. As such, the responses previously provided generally address the contents of the 2025 Smallwood report. Importantly, while the 2025 Smallwood report may contain some additional statements that were not made in the prior SAFER letter, dated January 9, 2025, or the 2022 Smallwood report attached to that letter, these additional statements do not present any significant new information about any potentially significant biological impacts.

Response IND 1-1
Provides introductory remarks; no response required.

Response IND 1-2
Provides results of surveys conducted by Dr. Smallwood; no response required.

Response IND 1-3
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Responses IND-4-4-2, IND-4-4-3 through IND-4-4-7 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 1-4
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Responses IND-4-4-8 and IND-4-4-9 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 1-5
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Responses IND-4-4-8 and IND-4-4-12 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 1-6
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Responses IND-4-4-8 and IND-4-4-10 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 1-7
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Responses IND-4-4-8 and IND-4-4-11of the Final EIR.

Conejo Summit Project 2 ESA / D20170220.03
Final Environmental Impact Report September 2025

Response IND 1-8
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND-4-9 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 1-9
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND-4-4-13 of the Final EIR.

Conejo Summit Project 1 ESA / D20170220.03
Final Environmental Impact Report September 2025

Response to
Letter 2
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance-
September 4, 2025

Response IND 2-1
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-5 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-2
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-3 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-3
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-5 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-4
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-6 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-5
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-9 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-6
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-7 and IND 3-6 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-7
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-4 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-8
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-5 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-9
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-7 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-10
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-5 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-11
See Chapter 9 Response to Comments, Response IND 2-3, IND 2-5, IND 2-6, IND 2-9, and IND 3-6 of the Final EIR.

Response IND 2-12
The City held a public scoping meeting on March 1, 2023, at 6 P.M. in compliance with CEQA guidelines 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR. No additional outreach is required under CEQA. In addition, no additional mitigation measures are warranted. The EIR determined

Conejo Summit Project 2 ESA / D20170220.03
Final Environmental Impact Report September 2025

that all impacts will be less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the EIR.

Response IND 2-13
Comment noted, this is the conclusion of the letter.

1 Lori Goor
From: Community Development Department
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:09 PM
To: Lori Goor; Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 7A – Conejo Summit Comments Attachments: 6041-014acp - Agenda 7A - Conejo Summit Comments and Exhibits A-B.pdf

Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500

From: Alisha C. Pember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]>; Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]> Cc: Aidan P. Marshall <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 7A – Conejo Summit Comments

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.

Good afternoon,

Please find attached Comments re Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 7A – Conejo Summit Comments and Exhibits A-B.

We are also providing a Dropbox link containing supporting references: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/c8qn3zufkbs1658i9g5sw/APZFo-_4BQ- o09IFUvC80qg?rlkey=uqgpv0ctjkdckv3vhqd9jxg8j&st=t4pnvqjd&dl=0

Hard copies of our Comments and Exhibits A-B will be hand delivered at this evening’s hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact Aidan Marshall.

Thank you.

Alisha Pember

2 Alisha C. Pember
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 589-1660 voice, Ext. 24
[email protected]
___________________
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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