Thousand Oaks City Council
October 21, 2025

1 10/21/2025
Conejo Summit Appeal
Generally located at the intersection of
Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Boulevard
2022-70771-EIR, 2019-70439-DP , 2019-70440-VTTM, 2019-70441-VTTM, 2021-71158-PTP, 2019-70442-USP , 2019-70443-LPC
City Council
October 21, 2025
• Appellant 1 (SAFER) 15 Minutes
• Appellant 2 (CARE CA) 15 Minutes
• Applicant 30 Minutes
• Appellant 1 5 Minute Rebuttal
• Appellant 2 5 Minute Rebuttal
• Applicant 10 Minute Rebuttal
• Public Comment 2-5 Minutes each, depending on number of speakers Public Hearing Outline
2 1
2 Item 10.A.
(Staff's Presentation)
2 10/21/2025
Adopt resolution •Denying the two appeals, thereby •Upholding the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and project approvals for the Conejo Summit Project.Recommendation 3 Maps4
3 4
3 10/21/2025
Building Design 5
Protected Trees 6
RemoveEncroachIdentifiedType102132Oaks12719Toyons
5 6
4 10/21/2025
Signage7
1983 Rancho Conejo Specific Plan (SP 7) adopted1,862-acre area 1,893 residential units152-acre employment park with light manufacturing and office uses 23 acres of commercial development1983 – 2015SP 7 Amended 16 times1,324 residential units, 100-acre employment park with light manufacturing and office uses 33-acre public facility No commercial developmentProject Background8 7 8
5 10/21/2025
SP 7’s Employment Park Development Potential 100 acresGeneral Plan 1.0 FAR = ~4.4 million square feetM-1 50% building coverage = ~2.2 million square feet0.35 FAR = ~ 1.5 million square feetSP 7’s Employment Park Development Realized~50 acres ~260,000 square feet 30 residential unit navigation center (emergency shelter)Backbone infrastructureConejo Summit~50 acres~755,000 square feetSP 7’s Cumulative Development100 acres ~1.01 million square feet 30 residential unit navigation center (emergency shelter)Project Background9 Enhance the City’s high-value economic sectors Diversify the City's job base Contribute to the City's long-term economic vitalityDevelop a critical mass of buildings in a large-format business park for uses authorized in the Specific PlanExpand economic development opportunitiesFoster growth and attract new industriesPromote and expand existing job centersBe competitive with other similar facilities in the regionEnhance and improve infrastructure and circulationCreate adequate parkingSummary of Applicant’s Goals & Objectives109 10 6
10/21/2025
EIR Prepared in conformance with CEQANotice of Preparation review period: February 17 – March 20, 2023Scoping Meeting: March 1, 2023Notice of Availability review period: November 26, 2024 – January 10, 2025Response to Comments preparedFinal EIR identifies impact levelsPlanning Commission found all potentially significant impacts are mitigated to levels that are less than significantCalifornia Environmental Quality Act11 Two appeals were filedAppeal #1 – SAFERAppeal #2 – CARE CABoth appeals allege the DEIR fails to comply with CEQACARE CA appeal also alleges approvals of the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, Development Permit, and Uniform Sign Program were unsupported by the recordThe substance of both appeals and responses were previously provided to the Planning CommissionThe Planning Commission did not find merit in the comments that were provided by the now appellantsThe EIR analysis and project findings are supported by substantial evidenceStaff concludes neither appeal has merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approvalAppeals1211 12 7
10/21/2025
Appeal alleges the DEIR fails to comply with CEQABiological ResourcesUnderestimated species diversityBiological baseline was faultyFailed to assess or mitigate impactsMitigation measures do not reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levelsStaff ResponseThe EIR’s wildlife diversity was more extensive than in the appellant’s commentsBiological baseline was thoroughly establishedBiological impacts accurately assessedMitigation measures reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levelsCalifornia Department of Fish & Wildlife did not identify deficiencies on the EIR’s approachAppeal #1 – SAFER13 Appeal alleges the DEIR fails to comply with CEQAEnergyEnergy impacts were not properly analyzedStaff ResponseAdequately analyzed construction and operational energy usageThe project will not result in wasteful or inefficient energy useThe project will incorporate solar-ready roofs and EV infrastructure consistent with Building CodeStaff concludes Appeal #1 has no merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approvalAppeal #1 – SAFER1413 14 8
10/21/2025
The FEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements and must be recirculatedAir QualitySignificant impacts remain unmitigatedAll feasible onsite mitigation measures have not been implementedThe impact fee would not result in emissions reductionsStaff ResponseImpacts are reduced to less-than-significant through Transportation Demand Management FeeThe City has a history of emission reduction projectsThe City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program includes qualifying programs for these feesThe City’s Climate & Environmental Action Plan will result in additional qualifying programsProject conditions reduce emissions beyond code requirementsAppeal #2 – CARE CA15 The FEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements and must be recirculatedElectric Vehicle SpacesProject fails to meet EV capable spaces code requirementsAdditional EV capable spaces are necessary to reduce air quality impactsStaff ResponseProject must comply with code requirementsMitigation Measure TRAF-5 includes language to install EV chargers exceeding 2022 code requirementsTruck Trip Lengths and EmissionsThe FEIR underestimated emissions from truck tripsStaff ResponseThe FEIR conservatively analyzed emissions from truck trips. Emissions were not underestimated.Appeal #2 – CARE CA1615 16 9
10/21/2025
The FEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements and must be recirculatedBackup GeneratorsFEIR discounted emissions from future use of backup generatorsStaff ResponseGenerators are not proposed and not requiredIt is speculative to assume future tenants will have generators and the energy source (diesel, solar)Traffic NoiseFEIR fails to validate the traffic noise modelStaff ResponseNoise analysis was validated and based on site-specific dataMeasured ambient air, Traffic data, Model adjusted for time-of-day sensitive periodsAppeal #2 – CARE CA17 The FEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements and must be recirculatedFire FlowFEIR failed to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysisStaff ResponseCity & Fire staff found adequate flowFire flow compliance verified at plan-check and construction inspectionsRecirculationRecirculation of the EIR is requiredStaff ResponseRecirculation of the EIR is not required No new significant informationNo new or substantially significant impactNo considerable changes to mitigation measures or alternativesEIR had substantial evidence and was not conclusoryAppeal #2 – CARE CA1817 18 10
10/21/2025
The FEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements and must be recirculatedProject Findings: Maps, Development Permit, Uniform Sign ProgramPlanning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make the FindingsStaff ResponseSubstantial evidence and Findings are in the recordEIR & AppendicesPlanning Commission staff report & attachmentsPlanning Commission ResolutionStaff concludes Appeal #2 has no merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approvalAppeal #2 – CARE CA19 CityNotice of ApplicationCEQAPublic HearingGeneral inquiriesApplicantOutreachPublic Correspondence 2019 20 11
10/21/2025
Adopt resolution •Denying the two appeals, thereby •Upholding the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and project approvals for the Conejo Summit Project.Recommendation 21 2221
22 10/13/2025
1 CONEJO SUMMIT
T h o u s a n d O a k s
15 16
Item 10.A.
(Applicant's Presentation)
10/13/2025
2 HISTORY IN RANCHO CONEJO AREA•Purchased former MGM Ranch property in late 1970’s•Entitled master plan for area in 1980’s, originally included over 100 acres of industrial land•Constructed over 1,000 homes•Developed & still own Arroyo Villas apartments (354 units) Aerial viewSite17
18 10/13/2025
3 Master Site Plan
IllustrativeLandscape Plan
19 20
10/13/2025
4 Buildings 1A-1D-1E-2
Elevations Buildings 1A-1D-1E-2
21 22
10/13/2025
5 Buildings 1B-1C-4A-4B
Elevations Buildings 1B-1C-4A-4B
23 24
10/13/2025
6 Buildings 1F-1G
Elevations Buildings 1F-1G
25 26
10/13/2025
7 Building 3
Elevations Building 3
27 28
10/13/2025
8 Building 5A
Elevations Building 5A
29 30
10/13/2025
9 Building 5B-6A
Elevations Building 5B-6A
31 32
10/13/2025
10 Building 6B
Elevations Building 6B
33 34
10/13/2025
11 CONEJO SUMMITT h o u s a n d O a k s35
1 10/21/2025
City Council Meeting
October 21, 2025
Amgen Concurrent
Processing Request
• Concurrent Processing for a Specific Plan
Amendment and Development Entitlements
Request
1 2
Item 12.A.
2 10/21/2025
Background3
•Amgen Specific Plan (SP-16) serves aslong-term development plan guidingexpansion of the biopharmaceuticalcompany’s headquarters.•Functions as an implementation tool forthe General Plan.•Includes height districts ranging from 35to 75 feet.•Recent announcement to invest in anew center for science and innovation.

General Plan Land Use Designations4A
3 4
3 10/21/2025
Area SpecificGuidance5
Concurrent Processing 6A•Specific Plan Amendment•Development Permit•Landscape Plan Check5 6 4
10/21/2025
Specific Plan Amendment and Concurrent Processing
Application Submittal/ Review
Environmental Analysis
Planning Commission Hearing
City Council HearingNext Steps7

1.Adopt resolution authorizing the concurrent processing of the Specific Plan Amendment and projectentitlements for the proposed development of new research and development, laboratories, andsupporting facilities for the Amgen campus.2.Find that such declaration does not constitute a project as defined under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines; however, even if the actionscontemplated herein constituted a project, the actions are exempt under Section 15061(b)(3).Recommendations7 8 5
10/21/2025
9