October 1, 2025
Subject: Supplemental Report - Response to Comments for the 2025 Smallwood Report This supplemental report by Dudek (Dudek Supplemental Report) provides supplemental responses to Dr.
Smallwood’s report dated January 4, 2025 (2025 Smallwood Report) that are in addition to the responses provided by Dudek in its September 8, 2025 response. By way of background, the Final EIR prepared by the City of Thousand Oaks (City) included responses to Dr. Smallwood’s report dated March 11, 2022 (2022 Smallwood Report), which EIR responses were supported by technical reports prepared by Dudek dated March 2024 and April 2025.
Pages 2-31 of the 2025 Smallwood Report indicate 67 vertebrate wildlife species (14 special-status species) were detected during 13.5 hours of surveys conducted across 33 months. The 2022 Smallwood Report indicates 45 vertebrate wildlife species (7 special-status) were detected during 5.5 hours of surveys conducted across 2 days.
The increase is to be expected given the increased time spent surveying the area, as well as the inclusion of multiple seasons. The conclusions made in the 2025 Smallwood Report are not altered by the increase in vertebrate species observed compared to the 2022 Smallwood Report.
Pages 18-21 of the 2025 Smallwood Report discusses the results of surveys conducted by Dudek, which was absent from the 2022 Smallwood Report.
On page 19, Dr. Smallwood states that a comparison of Dudek’s survey results to Dr. Smallwood’s result reveals the incompleteness of the survey effort committed to the project site, pointing to the prediction that more vertebrate wildlife species would be observe d with more surveys. While all wildlife species detected during reconnaissance and other wildlife surveys—by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs—were identified and recorded in the Draft EIR (see Appendix C to Appendix D), there is no asserti on or expectation that this represents all wildlife species that could use the site at any point in the future. As discussed in the Final EIR Response to Comment (RTC’s) 4-4-3, the Draft EIR points out several potential limitations of the surveys conducted, including a diurnal bias and the absence of focused trapping for small mammals and reptiles, and identifies several common wildlife species that were not observed but that would be expected to occur in the study area, also noting that additional birds may be present as residents or transients during foraging or migration (see Appendix D, p. 15). In order to establish a project’s environmental baseline for the purposes of CEQA, it is not necessary for each and every species of wildlife utilizing a site to be observed in the field. The fact that analyses of impacts to biological resources include an assessment of those species not observed but with the potential to occur, is an implicit acknowledgement that species may be using the site that have not been observed and it is never the intention of the surveys conducted to develop an exhaustive list of wildlife using a site. The surveys conducted identified the biotic and abiotic characteristics such as vegetation communities present, soils on site, surrounding land uses, and others, which along with the literature review were used to assess the potential for special-status wildlife species to use the site, whether they were 1 All references to page numbers are to the 2025 Smallwood Report.
ATTACHMENT #6
TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 2
OCTOBER 2025
observed or not; as such, the survey effort on the project site was not incomplete in its purpose of establishing the site’s environmental baseline as it relates to biological resources.
On page 20, Dr. Smallwood states that the Draft EIR “characterizes the project site as ‘highly disturbed,’ thereby giving the impression that the site is of low value to wildlife” and that “the DEIR over -generalizes that disturbance reduces the likelihoods of occurren ce of special-status species.” The Draft EIR’s description of the site as highly disturbed is based on observations in the field that the site has been subjected to historical grading, is regularly used by humans, including with motorized vehicles, contains compacted soils, and is predominated by non-native plant species. No statement is made in the Draft EIR that the site is of low value for wildlife in general or that disturbance reduces the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species in general. Where discussions of wildlife do reference the disturbed nature of the site, it is in reference to specific resources, such as coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and mountain lion (Puma concolor), which lessen the likelihood for those resources to utilize the site because of species-specific habitat affinities and/or behaviors. Dr. Smallwood points to two special-status species in particular that “appear to thrive in the face of certain types and magnitudes of disturbance” - burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia ) and Swainson’s hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ) - although no comment is made specifically addressing the Draft EIR’s analysis of these species. The Draft EIR’s analysis of burrowing owl refers to disturbance only to point out that the historical uses of the site have led to compaction and relatively few burrows on site, none of which were suitable for burrowing owl (i.e., approximately 4 inches or greater at the entrance). The Draft EIR does not include Swainson’s hawk in its analysis since the study area is outside of the breeding range for the species, and the species is expected to occur only as a transient during migration.
Also on p age 20, Dr. Smallwood mentions that the two focused surveys that were conducted for special -status surveys had positive results and states that the “failure of a couple of reconnaissance surveys to detect a particular special-status species does not qualify as evidence of absence.” The Draft EIR makes no assertion that the results of reconnaissance surveys were used as evidence for species absence. Appendix D of the Draft EIR states clearly that the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within the study area was assessed based on known geographic ranges, the presence/absence of suitable habitat, and other natural history elements that might predict their occurrence, not whether or not they were observed during reconnaissance surveys . In fact, m any species determined to have the potential to occur on site and which were therefore analyzed in the Draft EIR were not observed during reconnaissance surveys.
On page 21, Dr. Smallwood states, “No surveys for bats have been completed, except by Noriko Smallwood on my behalf.” The Draft EIR’s conclusions regarding bats remain ill-informed in the absence of surveys.” As is stated in the Draft EIR, bats roosting in the project vicinity may use the project site for foraging. However, as is indicated in the potential to occur determinations for special-status bats, suitable bat roosting habitat is absent from the project site (see Appendix E to Appendix D of the Draft EIR). Therefore, the project is not expected to result in impacts to roosting bats and surveys are not needed.
On page 22, Dr. Smallwood makes several comments regarding coastal California gnatcatcher and the Draft EIR’s analysis of this species’ potential to occur on site. The comments do not identify any specific inadequacy in the Draft EIR’s analysis. The comments do point out that coastal California gnatcatcher was observed on site during Dr.
Smallwood’s surveys and that the Draft EIR determined that this species is absent from the site. The comments also assert that the Draft EIR’s discussion of this species is inconsistent. As is stated in the Draft EIR, although much of the coastal scrub within the project site is disturbed and consists of fragmented stands, based on the literature review, it was initially determined that coastal California gnatcatcher had a moderate potential to occur on the project site (see Appendix D, p. 34). The Draft EIR conclud ed that coastal California gnatcatcher is absent TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 3
OCTOBER 2025
from the study area, including the project site, based on negative focused surveys conducted in 2023, conducted after (and due to the initial determination made during) the literature review (see Appendix D, p. 35 and Appendix F to Appendix D of the Draft EIR). In other words, there is no inconsistency in the potential to occur determinations for this species, which based on the literature were initially moderate, but were revised to absent following focused surveys conducted in accordance with the currently accepted protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol.
Furthermore, the fact that a single individual was observed flying across the site is not inconsistent with the findings in the Draft EIR. As is reported in the Draft EIR, records for this species are present in the areas surrounding the project site and three adults Ca lifornia gnatcatchers were observed on Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA) lands outside of the study area during focused surveys in 2023. The Draft EIR also points out that there is potentially suitable habitat for gnatcatcher on s ite. Therefore, there is of course a potential for this highly mobile species, which is known to occupy the surrounding areas, to occur on the project site as a transient (i.e., there is a potential for coastal California gnatcatcher, a highly mobile bird, to fly across the site) . However, the presence of transient individuals does not mean the site is occupied by breeding pairs and the Draft EIR’s determination that the species is absent from the site is not contradicted by the observation of a single individual flying across the site.
On page 23, Dr. Smallwood asserts that the Draft EIR does not provide a defensible reason for its determination that burrowing owl has a low potential to occur on site. The Draft EIR identifies several reasons for the determination of a low potential to occur for burrowing owl, including the absence of burrowing owl sign from the site, the fact that soils on site are compacted (due to prior grading and other disturbance), that very few burrows were observed, and the fact that no burrows suitable for burrowi ng owl (i.e., approximately 4 inches or greater at the entrance) were observed on site. As is stated in the Draft EIR, the presence of suitable burrows is the most essential component of burrowing owl habitat, as they are required for nesting, roosting, cover, and caching prey. The absence of suitable burrows and the absence of burrowing owl sign are both defensible reasons for the determination of a low potential to occur. Dr. Smallwood also claims that Dudek reasoned that the occurrence likelihood is low because the site supports few California ground squirrels. This is inaccurate: in Appendix D of the Draft EIR, Dudek reported that California ground squirrels could be heard in the surrounding open space areas, but none were observed on the project site. Dr. Smallwood’s claim that California ground squirrel is one of the more ubiquitous wildlife species on site is dubious considering none of the surveys conducted in support of the 2025 Smallwood Report were performed on the project site. It is clear that Ca lifornia ground squirrels are present in the adjacent open space lands that have not been subjected to the same disturbance as the project site; however, these areas are also unlikely to support burrowing owl because of the steep slopes and dense vegetation.
On page 23, Dr. Smallwood states, “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 1 9 km is but a small trip to a California condor.” The Draft EIR identifies the same eBird records Dr. Smallwood references, which are limited to north of the Santa Susana Mountains. As the Draft EIR explains, no California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus) nesting habitat is present on the project site and the site would not be expected to provide the food source s necessary for regular California condor use; therefore, there is a low potential for California condor to fly over the site and this species is not expected to use the project site for foraging or nesting. Dr. Smallwood does not provide any new informatio n that would alter this determination. Furthermore, although California condor may fly over the site, which the Draft EIR acknowledges, this does not mean there is a potential for impacts to occur.
TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 4
OCTOBER 2025
On page 23, Dr. Smallwood questions the source for the fact that monarch requires surrounding windbreak trees to shelter roost trees and states that Dudek’s characterization of monarch habitat is inaccurate. The Xerces Society’s Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves (2017) reports that wind protection is important for protecting suitable roost trees for overwintering monarch. The presence of monarch records from the area on iNaturalist , which Dr. Smallwood mentions, is not surprising given the species is known to migrate throughout the region.
However, monarch’s sensitivity status in California is tied to overwintering populations of the species and the Draft EIR’s conclusion that monarch is not expected to occur pertains to overwintering populations, which was based on the absence of suitable overwintering habitat on site (the site lacks large trees of any kind, let alone wind-protected tree groves).
On pages 24–25, Dr. Smallwood asserts that photos of mountain lions near human development indicate that there is no difference in habitat value for mountain lions between developed and undeveloped areas. Dr. Smallwood provides several anecdotes of mountain lions occurring near humans and developed areas as evidence that Dudek’s analysis that mountain lions are more likely to use undisturbed open space areas than areas with a prevalence of human activity is “contrived” and “misleading.” The analysis provided in Appendix D of the Draft EIR is based on scientific research, such as that reported in Center for Biological Diversity and the Mountain Lion Foundation (2019), as cited in the Draft EIR, which found that female lions typically avoid areas of human activity.
There is an abundance of additional research reporting that mountain lions are known to avoid residential development and other areas of human activity when moving about their home range (Dellinger et al 2019, Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2015, Benson et al. 2016), and Riley et al. (2021) found that lions also consistently avoid altered open areas (e.g., golf courses). Dr. Smallwood’s suggestion that developed areas provide equal habitat value and that lions do not select for less developed areas with less human presence is puzzling and incorrect.
On page 25, Dr. Smallwood states he found inaccurate characterizations of habitat of special-status species, which led to unfounded predictions of low occurrence likelihoods [in the Draft EIR]. He also states “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.” The 2025 Smallwood Report does not indicate which characterizations were inaccurate, nor which predictions of low occurrence potential were unfounded. Dudek made use of scientific literature and cited all sources (see References in Appendix D of the Draft EIR).
On p age 31, with regards to loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus), Dr. Smallwood states that the Draft EIR “contrives a distinction between nesting habitat an d other habitat that does not exist in nature” by stating that nesting habitat on the project site is of low quality and abundant suitable habitat is present in the project vicinity.
The Draft EIR does not distinguish between nesting and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike; instead, it explicitly points out that loggerhead shrike forages and nests in the same habitats - open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, or other perches (see Appendix E to Appendix D of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR specifically addresses the quality of loggerhead shrike nesting habitat on the project site because this species’ sensitivity status is tied to nesting (CDFW 2025).
Dr. Smallwood also states on page 31 that the presence of an abundance of suitable habitat in the adjacent COSCA lands is not relevant to the impacts analysis for loggerhead shrike and other species, claiming that these discussions should be removed from the Draft EIR, which should focus solely on the number of individual that would be expected to be lost during construction. The consideration of available suitable habitat in the immediate area is relevant to the analysis of impacts under CEQA. The intent of the Draft EIR’s impacts analysis is to gauge the effects of the project on the species, not on individuals, and the fact that adjacent lands provide suitable habitat to support these species in the future is relevant to the question of whether or not the project would res ult in a substantial TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 5
OCTOBER 2025
adverse effect on the species. As is explained in the Draft EIR, although loggerhead shrike and other special-status species may utilize the project site, it is in part because the surrounding areas provide suitable habitat to support these species that the Draft EIR concludes that the loss of suitable habitat would not substantially reduce the habitat for the species and would not cause the species population t o drop below self -sustaining levels and, therefore, that direct impacts to these species due to the loss of suitable habitat are less than significant.
On page 36, Dr. Smallwood states that “the Draft EIR does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.” As was stated in the Final EIR RTC 4-4-11, the Draft EIR was revised to clarify that potential indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species, specifically related to vehicle collisions, would be less than significant. These revisions point out that, after completion of the project, roads passing through the project site would be surrounded on both sides by industrial development (see Figure ES-2) that provides little to no foraging or refugia value for wildlife and does not support the essential life functions of special -status wildlife species potentially present in the area and that access routes to the project site from the south pass through highly urbanized areas provide little habitat value for wildlife and would not be expected to support special-status wildlife species. For these reasons, the project’s impacts due to vehicle-wildlife collisions are expected to be minimal and less than significant. Also, as noted in Final EIR RTC 4-4-11, feasible mitigation measures (TRAF-1 through TRAF-5) would be implemented to reduce the project’s VMT impact to less than significant (see Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR). The additional text does not alter the Biological Resources analysis, does not provide new significant information in the Draft EIR, does not constitute new significant infor mation, and does not alter the text of any Mitigation Measure.
On pages 38-42, Dr. Smallwood makes several comments related to his opinion about what the Draft EIR mitigation measures would and would not do. Dr. Smallwood does not identify any specific inadequacy in the Draft EIR’s analysis and no further response is required.
On page 39, Dr. Smallwood states that, “The obtaining of a take permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure.” Obtaining an incidental take permit (ITP), which would be necessary only if take is not avoidable, is not presented as the sole source of mitigation. Instead, the Draft EIR presents a suite of actions in MM -BIO-7, including pre - constructions surveys, avoidance Crotch’s bumble bee nests, and finally obtaining an ITP should take be unavoidable, which the measure states will include compensatory miti gation for the loss of Crotch’s bumble bee habitat. Dr. Smallwood also states, “…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.” Dr. Smallwood misrepresents the contents of the Draft EIR, which clearly states that focused sur veys were conducted on the project site, following CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Contrary to Dr. Smallwood’s assertions, these surveys informed the CEQA review.
Dr. Smallwood further comments on page 40 that, “Because [MM-BIO-7] 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.” Dr. Smallwood misunderstands the requirements to which CDFW is subject under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, which requires adherence to the requirements of CEQA prior to issuing an ITP. The Draft EIR cannot be removed from public circulation until it is known whether the CDFW would issue an Incidental Take Permit, as Dr.
TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 6
OCTOBER 2025
Smallwood suggests, because CDFW will not issue an Incidental Take Permit until the project has undergone CEQA review.
TO: [FULL NAME]
SUBJECT: [INSERT TEXT HERE]
14782 7
OCTOBER 2025
References
Benson, J. F., P. J. Mahoney, J. A. Sikich, L. E. Serieys, J. P. Pollinger, H. B. Ernest, and S. P. Riley. 2016.
Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283:20160957.
CDFW. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023.
CDFW. 2025. Species of Special Concern. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC.
Dellinger, J.A., B. Cristescu, J. Ewanyk, D.J. Gammons, D. Garcelon, P. Johnston, Q. Martins, T.W. Vickers, C.C.
Wilmers, H.U. Wittmer, and S.G. Torres. 2019. “Using Mountain Lion Habitat Selection in Management.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 84(2):359–371.
Riley, S.P., J.A. Sikich, and J.F. Benson. 2021. “Big Cats in the Big City: Spatial Ecology of Mountain Lions in Greater Los Angeles.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 85(8): 1,527–1,542.
Smith, J. A., Y. Wang, and C. C. Wilmers. 2015. Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human‐induced fear. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 282:20142711.
Wilmers, C. C., Y. Wang, B. Nickel, P. Houghtaling, Y. Shakeri, M. L. Allen, J. Kermish‐Wells, V. Yovovich, and T.
Williams. 2013. Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS One 8:e60590.
cdd:420-46/sk/H:COMMON/City Council/Agenda Packet/2025/2025-10-21/Shapell/Staff Report-City Council/pz/(FILE ID:
2019-70439-DP)