TO:Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
FROM:Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
DATE:October 21, 2025
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project (2022-70771-EIR/2019-70439-DP/2019- 70440-VTTM/2019-70441-VTTM/2021-71158-PTP/2019-70442-
USP/2019-70443-LPC)
RECOMMENDATION:
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.
LEVINE ACT ITEM: Yes
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Additional Funding Requested. Minimal staff time and costs to prepare this report are included in the Adopted FY 2025-26 General Fund Budget. The appeal filing fee and original application deposit paid by the appellant offset the costs associated with processing this appeal.
BACKGROUND:
Two appeals were filed regarding the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final EIR and project entitlement approval:
1. Brian Flynn of Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) alleging deficiencies in the Biological Resources and Energy analyses required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on September 11, 2025 (Attachment #1); and
2. Christina Caro of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) alleging deficiencies in the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and Public
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Utilities impact analysis required by the CEQA, CEQA recirculation requirements, CEQA findings, and entitlement findings on September 17, 2025 (Attachment #2).
After review of the appeal materials, staff finds both appeals raise issues previously addressed in the Final EIR and that no new substantial information has been presented warranting recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Staff finds substantial evidence is included in the CEQA and entitlement findings.
On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission took the following actions:
1. Conducted a duly noticed public hearing; and
2. Certified the EIR (2022-70771-EIR), including the MMRP, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the subject project; and
3. Approved the Development Permit (2019-70439-DP), Vesting Tentative Tract Maps [2019-70440-VTTM (VTTM 6021) & 2019-70441-VTTM (VTTM 6022)], Protected Tree Permit (2021-71158-PTP), and Uniform Sign Program (2019-70442-USP).
Collectively, these actions allowed the following, unless the project was appealed and the appeal was upheld:
1. Construct 15 industrial buildings (ranging between approximately 22,700 to 93,000 square feet) totaling approximately 755,000 square feet of building area and associated grading, roadways, parking, hardscape, landscape (encroachment and removal/replacement of protected trees), retaining walls, lighting, signage, utilities, and infrastructure on approximately 50 acres.
2. Construct buildings consistent with two Waivers which were granted to 1) increase the maximum building heights from 35 feet up to 41 feet above finished floor, and 2) reduce the minimum setback from 100 feet from the centerline of adjacent streets down to 52 feet for four properties.
3. Reconfigure the existing parcels into 16 condominium lots.
The project site 1) has an Industrial Low General Plan land use designation, 2) is within the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan (SP 7) planning area, which designates the project site parcels as Employment Park, and 3) is within the Industrial Park (M-1) zone.
Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for a detailed analysis of the project (Attachment #3) and Planning Commission Supplemental Information Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Packets 1-3 (Attachment #4). The requests were approved based on the findings contained in the Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment #5).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Project Site
The project site, which consists of approximately 50 acres, is located near the western boundary of the City within the northwestern portion of the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area, approximately 1-mile north of the 101 Freeway. Generally located at the intersection of Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 667-0-340-030; -045; -055; -065; -075; -085; -095; -105; -125; -135; -145; -155; -185; and -195).
Land that is owned and managed by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA) is located to the north and west of the project site. Industrial development is located northeast of the project site as well as to the south and west of the parcels that would be developed, including the City’s Municipal Service Center.
The project site is within SP 7. SP 7 was originally adopted in 1983 and envisioned an approximately 1,862-acre area intended for a variety of uses (residential, employment park, commercial, schools, parks, and open space) and circulation systems. The original Specific Plan anticipated 1,893 residential units, approximately 152-acre employment park with light manufacturing and office uses (and developed consistent with the M-1 zoning standards), and 23 acres of commercial development. The total projected population was estimated to be 4,370 persons and to contain 4,800 new jobs at full development.
Multiple Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Negative Declarations have been certified/approved for the Specific Plan and amendments thereto. The most recent Negative Declaration, written for Amendment 16, which was approved in October 2015, amended the Specific Plan land use designation from “High Density” residential to “Employment Park”, and estimated the future industrial development with a floor area ratio (FAR) 1 of 0.35 to estimate future building floor area. The utility systems were found to have the capacity to serve the project in the CEQA analysis, which is to be confirmed as part of the building permit technical plan-check review and building permit inspections.
1 FAR is the ratio between the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot and the total land area of that lot. A 20,000 square foot building on a 40,000 square foot lot yields a FAR of 0.5. A 0.5 FAR can describe a single-story building that covers half of the lot, a two-story building covering approximately one-quarter of the lot, or a four-story building covering one-eighth of the lot.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
In the 1990s, the subject parcels were graded, and backbone infrastructure was installed to serve these properties for the anticipated development in the public right-of-way between 1993 and 2001. The public infrastructure is appropriately sized to serve the project.
Project Description
The Conejo Summit project consists of the following entitlements:
1. Environmental Impact Report 2022-70775-EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020425) and MMRP: To consider the Final EIR, including MMRP, prepared in accordance with the CEQA for the subject project.
2. Development Permit 2019-70439-DP: To allow the construction of 15 industrial buildings ranging in size from approximately 22,700 to 93,000 square feet (sf) totaling approximately 755,000 sf of building area for industrial and ancillary uses on approximately 50 acres. The project site 1) has an Industrial Low General Plan land use designation, 2) is within the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan (SP 7), and 3) is within the Industrial Park (M- 1) zone. Waivers are requested to 1) increase the maximum building heights from 35 feet up to 41 feet above finished floor and 2) reduce the minimum setback from 100 feet from the centerline of adjacent streets down to 52 feet for four properties. Primary access to the proposed buildings would be from Rancho Conejo Boulevard, Conejo Center Drive, and the new Academy Drive extension within the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan area. Parking would be provided in surface lots, generally located around each building. The project also includes associated grading (balanced on- site), roadways (Academy Drive extension), parking, hardscape, landscaping, retaining walls, lighting, signage, utilities, and infrastructure.
The project would consist of a maximum of seven phases, with an anticipated construction period of 12 to 18 months for each phase. It is anticipated that the entire project phasing will be completed within approximately 10 years from the commencement of the first phase.
3. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 2019-70440-VTTM (VTTM 6021) & 2019- 70441-VTTM (VTTM 6022): The application includes two proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTM) that will reconfigure the existing lots. No new lots are proposed. VTTM No. 6021 involves approximately 35.8 gross acres that would be subdivided into 12 condominium lots for Buildings 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. VTTM 6022 involves approximately 15.5 gross acres that would be subdivided into 4 condominium lots for Buildings 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B. The project would include the dedication and development of an easterly portion of Academy Drive within the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan area, which would extend west from Conejo Center Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Drive, and would provide access to Lots 4A and 4B. In addition, the project would provide easements for utilities, multi-use trails, and access.
4. Protected Tree Permit 2021-71158-PTP: To allow removal of up to 22 protected trees (10 oak trees and 12 toyon trees) and encroachment into the protected zone of up to 28 protected trees (21 oak trees and 7 toyon trees), and to plant replacement trees on the project site at a 3:1 ratio.
5. Uniform Sign Program 2019-70442-USP: To allow new monument signs, directional signs, walls signs, address numbers, and ancillary signs within the Conejo Summit project area.
6. Landscape Plan Check 2019-70443-LPC: Technical review of proposed on- site landscaping.
SAFER Appeal (Appeal #1)
The first appeal application was submitted by Brian Flynn of Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). The appeal alleges that “the DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the reasons set forth in the attached letter dated September 3, 2025” (Attachment #1). The attached letter dated September 3, 2025, attached a revised letter dated January 9, 2025, and associated exhibit. The substance of the appeal was previously provided to, and evaluated by, the Planning Commission.
Responses to the whole of the SAFER letter dated September 3, 2025, including the attached letter and associated exhibit, have been provided within the materials provided to the Planning Commission.
A summary of SAFER’s EIR comments and a summary of the responses to SAFER’s EIR comments provided to the Planning Commission are provided in the proceeding paragraphs. For a comprehensive reply to the associated materials in Attachment #1, see “Response to Letter IND 4” in the FEIR Response to Comments (Attachment #3) and “Response to Letter 1” within the Planning Commission’s Supplemental Informational Packet 3, September 8, 2025 (Attachment #4).
In summary, SAFER commented the Biological Resources analysis in the EIR:
1. Underestimated the diversity of species and the biological baseline was faulty.
2. Failed to assess or mitigate impacts due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
3. Mitigation measures do not reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.
In summary, the Biological Resources response to comments concluded that the EIR:
1. Included an analysis of wildlife diversity that is more extensive than asserted by the appellant. The biological baseline was thoroughly established. The FEIR includes a full suite of mitigation measures (BIO-1 through BIO-12) addressing special-status species, nesting birds, lighting, and habitat restoration.
2. Accurately assessed impacts due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting.
3. Mitigation measures reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.
4. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) did not provide comments on the EIR’s approach and did not identify deficiencies requiring recirculation.
In summary, SAFER commented the Energy analysis in the EIR:
1. Improperly relies on Title 24 compliance and energy impacts were not properly analyzed.
In summary, the Energy response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. Adequately analyzed the project’s construction and operational energy usage, including vehicle trips generated by the Project, and the decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.
The Planning Commission found no merit in the comments received, except for a typo regarding special-status species. The corrected text in the FEIR Response to Comments did not change the analysis or result in significant new impacts, so the EIR did not need to be revised or recirculated. The appellant’s allegations provide no evidence indicating significant unmitigated impacts.
The FEIR includes quantitative modeling of construction and operational energy use, confirming consistency with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
The EIR concludes the following:
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
1. The project will not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use.
2. The Project will incorporate solar-ready roofs and EV-capable parking consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 standards.
3. Mandatory energy compliance is verified at the building permit stage, which satisfies CEQA.
In addition to staff’s responses, Dudek environmental consultants provided independent responses to the SAFER Biological Resources comments for City Council to consider in a technical memo titled “Supplemental Report – Response to Comments for the 2025 Smallwood Report” dated October 1, 2025 (Attachment #6). Staff peer-reviewed and concurred with the content included in Dudek’s technical memo. The technical memo again demonstrates there is no merit in any of the comments provided. The EIR does not need to be revised or recirculated.
CARE CA Appeal (Appeal #2)
The second appeal application was submitted by Christina Caro of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph, & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). The appeal contains three separate grounds set forth in their letter dated September 16, 2025, as well as two Attachments with Exhibits A and B (Attachment #2). Exhibit A is a copy of an email between staff and the applicant confirming the appeal process, and Exhibit B contains a copy of the letter submitted on September 8, 2025. The substance of the appeal was previously provided to, and evaluated by, the Planning Commission.
Responses to the three individual grounds for appeal are provided below in this staff report. Responses to the whole of the CARE CA letter dated September 8, 2025, including the attachments and associated exhibits, have been provided as “Letter 3 Response to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, September 8, 2025” within the Planning Commission’s Supplemental Information Packet 3, September 8, 2025 (Attachment #4), and similar responses to similar comments were previously provided as “Response to Letter IND 6” in the FEIR Response to Comments (Attachment #3).
Please refer to Attachment #2 for the specific appeal narrative. Provided below are the appellant’s three grounds for appeal, exactly as presented in CARE CA’s appeal, followed by staff responses. Each appeal statement is enumerated to correspond to the order presented by the appellant (e.g., 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3).
Additionally, a summary of CARE CA’s EIR comments and a summary of the responses to CARE CA’s EIR comments provided to the Planning Commission are included below in this staff report. For a comprehensive reply to the appeal narrative in the associated materials in Attachment #2, see “Response to Letter Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
IND 6” in the FEIR Response to Comments (Attachment #3) and “Letter 3 Response to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, September 8, 2025” within the Planning Commission’s Supplemental Information Packet 3, September 8, 2025 (Attachment #4).
Grounds of Appeal #2.1:
“The FEIR Does Not Meet CEQA’s Requirements and Must Be Recirculated.” CARE CA’s September 8, 2025, comments to the Planning Commission demonstrated that the FEIR certified by the Planning Commission is flawed and does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. As detailed in Attachment B, the FEIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, and evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project may result in significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), energy, noise, and cumulative impacts.
The Project would have significant impacts on air quality: the Project’s significant emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (“ROG”) and Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) remain unmitigated. These emissions exceed the City’s significance standards by 76 lbs/day, but the City failed to implement all feasible onsite mitigation measures to reduce this impact. CARE CA and its experts have proposed numerous and commonplace measures that would feasibly and effectively reduce emissions.
Further, CARE CA’s comments have demonstrated that the City’s impact fee would not clearly result in emissions reductions fully mitigating the Project’s impacts.
Further, the Project failed to provide electric vehicle (“EV”) capable spaces meeting Title 24 CALGreen standards. Additional provision of EV capable spaces is necessary to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts. The FEIR also underestimated emissions from truck trips (when site-specific, Ventura County data is applied). The FEIR also discounted emissions from future use of backup generators. Regarding noise, the FEIR fails to validate its traffic noise model against actual site-specific measurements. And regarding public utilities, the FEIR failed to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysis. As a result of these shortcomings, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions and fails to properly mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Thus, the FEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements.
The FEIR was improperly certified because CEQA requires recirculation of the EIR. Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added after the DEIR is circulated for public review but before certification of the FEIR.
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 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
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.” Here, the DEIR lacked basic analysis and discussion of the Project’s air quality, GHG, noise, public utilities, and cumulative impacts that are required by CEQA. Recirculation of the EIR is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
CARE CA requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s certification of the FEIR and all other Project entitlements. The FEIR’s flaws must be corrected in a recirculated EIR before the Project’s underlying entitlements can be reconsidered for approval.
Staff Response:
Air Quality
The FEIR’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) analyses were prepared using CalEEMod software with site-specific trip generation and construction schedules.
The air quality impact analysis is in Section 3.2, Air Quality, pages 3.2-24 through
3.2-42 of the Draft EIR. To reduce NOx and ROG emissions to a less-than- significant level, Mitigation Measure AQ-4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Fee would be implemented, which states the developer shall pay the City’s TDM Fee, based on the amount of emissions that need to be mitigated.
The Draft EIR states, “The fees shall be calculated based on the unit cost for ROG and NOx, in effect at the time a building permit is issued”. Thus, Mitigation Measure AQ-4 justifies that the TDM Fee would fully mitigate the excess NOx and ROG emissions over the significance threshold, per Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) guidelines.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4 states that the City is to hold the funds in the TDM Air Quality Impact Fee account until the funds are spent on an approved TDM mitigation program or project in which the mitigation program/project would reduce both ROG and NOx emissions. The funds are to be committed by the City to a TDM mitigation program within five years of receipt of the funds. The VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines state that the off-site TDM Fund fee would fund an established city or county mobile source emission reduction program to reduce emissions from transportation sources. Mitigation programs that could be funded by the TDM Fund fee include (but are not limited to) public transit service, vanpool programs/subsidies, rideshare assistance programs, and off-site TDM facilities. As Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
stated in Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the City would have the discretion to put the funds to a transportation project or program where they can get the best reduction of ROG and NOx emissions within five years.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4 specifically says that the funds must be used in a project or program within five years, it is enforceable by the City as the fee must be paid prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each construction phase, and the City will calculate the operational emissions reduction and the amount of the fee. Thus, Mitigation Measure AQ-4 meets CEQA requirements for mitigation because it is enforceable, it does not defer mitigation as funds have to be spent within five years, and the fees will be spent by the City on projects or programs that will reduce NOx and ROG emissions.
The City has collected TDM Fees since 1989 (Resolution No. 89-246) and has used the fees for funding programs which, per the determination of the Public Works Director, reduce the emissions from motor vehicle or for TDM strategies which reduce the number of trips, or the length of trips, and as a result, mitigate the air quality impacts of development. In prior years, the City has used the TDM Fund fees to construct a variety of projects including, but not limited to, the following: the Thousand Oaks Transit Holiday Shoppers’ Shuttle Bus – Pilot Program (1996: CI 1193), the Greenmeadow Bikeway (2000: CI 8007), the Community Transportation Center (2001: CI 1107), Feasibility Study for the Willow Lane Bikeway and Recreation Trail (2002: CI 8007), and the Bicycle Lane Project – Avenida de Las Flores Between Lynn Road and Erbes Road (2003: MI 2204).
The City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 includes projects which would qualify for using TDM Fees such as the purchase of Zero Emission Dial-A-Ride Vans (CI 5719) and Zero Emission Buses (CI 5722, CI 5790) for public transit, electric vehicle charging infrastructure for the City’s transit bus fleet (CI 5473, CI 5717, CI 5726, CI 5760). Additionally, the City’s Climate & Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) includes two primary strategies for tackling emissions from the Transportation sector are to reduce the vehicle miles driven through making alternative means of mobility, such as walking, biking, or buses, more accessible and more attractive, and to support and help accelerate a shift from internal combustion vehicles to electric. As the CEAP is an adopted long-term plan, it is anticipated that the CEAP’s strategies will result in additional projects that are eligible to receive TDM Fees throughout the implementation of this project.
CEQA allows use of off-site or fund-based mitigation when performance standards and monitoring are in pace per Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(B). Lastly, cumulative impacts were analyzed consistent with VCAPCD thresholds.
Project conditions were developed after the modeling was completed, so the project conditions are not collectively reflected in the air quality emissions modeling. The following project conditions include measures to reduce the building’s operational emissions and go beyond requirements found in the Green Building Code and Energy Code:
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
• 73 (Emergency Power)
• 80 (Roofing Materials)
• 104 (Roof Overhangs, Metal Canopies, and Window Awnings) • 161 (Energy Efficient Lighting)
• 162 (Non-occupied Hours Lighting)
The following project conditions include measures to reduce the vehicular operation emissions:
• 51 (VMT Reduction)
• 52 (Provide Pedestrian & Bicycle Network Improvements) • 53 (Electric Chargers for Bicycles & Scooters)
• 54 (Provide End of Trip Facilities)
• 55 (On-Site Facilities)
• 56 (Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities)
• 72 (Interior Electrical Charging Stations)
• 76 (Sustainable Transportation Programs)
• 134 (Transportation Demand and Trip Reduction Standards and Measures) • 169 (Noise Control)
• 201 (Electric Construction Equipment)
These required project conditions are to be implemented onsite, and they feasibly and effectively reduce emissions.
Electric Vehicle Spaces
In response to the remarks related to electric vehicle (EV) spaces, the Project is subject to comply with regulatory requirements to designate EV capable spaces and spaces with installed EV supply equipment (EVSE). The project is conditioned to do so by project condition 187. Additionally, mitigation measure (MM) TRAF-1 through MM TRAF-5 includes a menu of options for the developer to make various improvements to lower VMT. Of these options, MM TRAF-5 includes language to install onsite electric vehicle chargers in addition to what is required by the 2022 California Green Building Standards (84 EV chargers and 249 EV-capable parking spaces) at buildings within designated parking areas.
Truck Trip Lengths and Emissions
In response to the remarks the EIR underestimated emissions from truck trips, the EIR conservatively utilized SCAQMD’s recommended methodology in their Warehouse Action and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program Guidelines to analyze average trip lengths including local trips as well as potential Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
trips that may occur to the ports; however, it is important to recognize the SCAQMD comment letters were for different projects that were primarily warehouse projects.
This Project is an industrial park, which may include some warehousing, but is not predominantly a warehousing project and would not generate truck trips that would all travel to and from port locations. At this time, the project tenants are not known, so it would be speculative to assume all project truck trips would extend to the ports. Because the percentage of truck trips that would extend to the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual and reasonably available data in the region.
Since the analyses in the Draft EIR include the estimated mileage for truck trips based on real and available data, air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts were not underestimated.
Backup Generators
In response to the remarks that the EIR discounted emissions from the future use of backup generators, there are no regulatory requirements for onsite generator systems for all uses. Title 24 requires that newly constructed building types with at least 80 percent of the floor area of the building for specific uses (e.g., office, warehouse), shall have a newly installed photovoltaic (PV) and a battery storage system meeting minimum requirements.
Neither the Project Description nor the associated plan materials include emergency backup generators as the applicant does not propose them. It would be speculative to determine whether a future owner/tenant will have a back-up energy source and to identify what that back-up energy source may be (e.g., diesel generator, battery system, some other technology). The City acknowledges Title 24 requires the installation of PV and battery storage systems (but not generators which utilize natural gas and/or diesel) for certain uses of certain sizes. The Draft EIR did not directly discuss the incorporation of a PV system or battery system as these systems may not be required or proposed, the specifics of the systems are not known, and consequently the Draft EIR also did not include any reduction of energy impacts because of a PV system or battery storage system, since the sizes are unknown at this time as they are dependent on the building type and specific tenant. Had the City included such a discussion, with the incorporation of a PV system and battery system, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts would be less than those identified in the Draft EIR.
If, in the future, a property owner/tenant proposes a backup energy source, they would apply for associated entitlements and permits in the future, and that request would be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations that exist at that point in the future.
As such, staff find the analysis is supported by substantial evidence, and no deferred mitigation exists.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Traffic Noise
In response to remarks that the EIR fails to validate its traffic noise model against actual site-specific measurements, the noise model used established baseline conditions, was properly validated, considered worst-case conditions, and provided substantial evidence. The noise analysis included both measured ambient noise levels and modeled roadway traffic noise. Time-of-day corrections were included that require the addition of 5 dB to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and the addition of 10 dB to sound levels at night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to account for the noise-sensitive time periods when sound is perceived as louder.
Based on the appellant’s prior comments, the traffic noise model remark seems to be related to noise along Rancho Conejo Boulevard segment north of Ventu Park Road towards Conejo Center Drive, which is the segment adjacent to sensitive receptor location R3 as denoted in Section 3.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The City provided traffic volume data which was incorporated into the noise analysis in Appendix I. The increase in noise from the Project would be approximately 2.2 dBA CNEL or less compared to existing conditions along the evaluated segment of Rancho Conejo Boulevard, which would have a less-than-significant impact to noise. A 3 dB increase in noise would require a doubling of existing traffic sound energy (e.g., a doubling of traffic volumes). Therefore, given that the Project would not cause a doubling of the existing traffic sound energy, the determination of a less-than-significant traffic noise impact is supported by substantial evidence. The noise model was validated and based on site-specific data. No additional analysis is required and shows less-than-significant impacts.
Fire Flow Analysis
In response to remarks that the EIR failed to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysis, the City’s Public Works Department, Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department staff reviewed the proposed project, and City staff concluded it was reasonable to assume the existing infrastructure and proposed onsite infrastructure will provide water and wastewater to the project with enough available capacity, adequate flow, and not require off-site improvements (e.g., no pumps) to support the proposed project. Public Works, Building and Safety, and Fire Department staff confirmed the existing infrastructure has adequate capacity.
Utility compliance will be verified at plan-check and construction inspections. No significant environmental impact is identified.
Recirculation
Lastly, Chapter 8 of the Final EIR identifies when recirculation of an EIR is required Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
(p. 8-2), and the Final EIR concludes that the thresholds to recirculate the EIR have not been met (p. 8-3). No comments received since publishing the Final EIR constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The Final EIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.
Conclusion
Staff concludes Grounds of Appeal 2.1 have no merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approval.
Grounds of Appeal #2.2:
“Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Was Unsupported by the Record The Subdivision Map Act and Section 9-3.702 of the TOMC require the City to deny approval of the Project’s Vesting Tentative Tract Maps if the Project would result in significant environmental or public health impacts. Government Code, section 66474, provides:
A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make these findings.
The Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and result in substantial environmental damage for the reasons summarized in herein and in CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR (Attachment B).
CARE CA requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of these permits. The FEIR’s flaws must be corrected in a recirculated EIR before the City can make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s permits.”
Staff Response:
The appellant does not identify any specific Vesting Tentative Tract Maps finding that cannot be made but only provides a conclusory assertion that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make the required findings to approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and the Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and result in substantial environmental damage.
Substantial evidence is included in the record and detailed findings are included in the approved Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment #4) which show the project is consistent with the land use plans, the project is not detrimental to the general welfare, and all environmental impacts are less-than-significant with required mitigation measures that are included within the Project’s conditions of approval. The findings for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 2019-70440- VTTM & 2019-70441-VTTM were made, including findings that the entire project, inclusive of the proposed maps, is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans; that the maps are physically suitable for the type and density of the development; that the design of the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damages or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat; that the project would not cause serious public health problems; that the maps do not conflict with existing public easements; and that the project conforms with the provisions of CEQA.
Staff concludes Grounds of Appeal 2.2 have no merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approval.
Grounds of Appeal #2.3:
“Approval of the Project’s Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program Was Unsupported by the Record
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
The Planning Commission made findings pursuant to Section 9-4.2803 of the TOMC in order to approve the Project’s Development Permit and Uniform Sign Program. Section 9-4.2803 of the TOMC provides that the City must find:
(1) The project is consistent with the Thousand Oaks General Plan and any applicable specific plan or redevelopment plan;
(2) The project complies with all applicable laws, regulations and policies, including the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code;
(3) The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
(4) The project has been reviewed in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act;
(5) The proposed use at the proposed location will be compatible with land uses in the vicinity.
The Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make these findings.
The Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and be inconsistent with CEQA for the reasons summarized in herein and in CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR.”
Staff Response:
The appellant does not identify any specific Development Permit or Uniform Sign Program finding that cannot be made but only provides a conclusory assertion that the Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to make the required findings to approve the Development Permit or Uniform Sign Program and the Project would be inconsistent with land use plans, be detrimental to the general welfare, and result in substantial environmental damage.
Substantial evidence is included in the record and detailed findings were included in the approved Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment #4), summarized above, which demonstrate the project is consistent with the land use plans, the project is not detrimental to the general welfare, and the Project was analyzed consistent with CEQA. The findings for approval of 2019-70439-DP and 2019- 70442-USP were made, including findings that the entire project, inclusive of the proposed development and uniform sign program, is consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans; is compliant with applicable laws, regulations, and policies; is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare; is in conformance with the provisions of CEQA; and will be compatible with the land uses in the vicinity.
Staff concludes Grounds of Appeal 2.3 have no merit, and staff recommends City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approval.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Summary of CARE CA’s Comments provided to the Planning Commission:
In addition to the written comments provided in CARE CA, Representatives of CARE CA provided comments on the FEIR at the September 8, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. A summary of CARE CA’s EIR comments and a summary of the responses to CARE CA’s EIR comments provided to the Planning Commission are provided in the proceeding paragraphs.
In summary, CARE CA’s September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comments regarding the Air Quality analysis in the EIR were as follows:
1. The Project’s significant emissions of ROG and NOx remain unmitigated.
The City failed to implement all feasible onsite mitigation measures to reduce this impact. The impact fee would not clearly result in emissions reductions fully mitigating the Project’s impacts.
2. The Project fails to provide electric vehicle capable spaces meeting Title 24 CALGreen standards.
3. The EIR fails to evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary Green Building Code standards to reduce operational emissions.
4. The EIR greatly underestimates emissions from truck trips.
5. The EIR fails to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of shortening permissible idling times for construction equipment and delivery trucks to reduce mobile source emissions.
6. The EIR incorrectly discounts emissions from future use of backup generators.
7. The EIR 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 to reduce operational emissions.
8. The EIR fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions from construction of the Project and other industrial projects and mobile sources generated by the cumulative projects’ operations.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting the City’s environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) subject matter expert Alan Sako, LEED AP BD+C Principal Consultant, Air Quality, Climate & Acoustics, responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the Air Quality response to Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
comments concluded, the EIR:
1. The Project’s significant emissions of ROG and NOx have been mitigated.
Project conditions, including mitigation measures, are required to be implemented onsite and feasibly and effectively reduce emissions. The impact fee would result in fully mitigated air quality emissions impacts.
2. The Project is to comply with regulatory requirements including designating electric vehicle capable spaces and spaces with installed supply equipment.
3. The EIR identifies Green Building Code regulatory requirements, the Project is to comply with regulatory requirements, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval to reduce operational emissions.
4. The EIR includes estimated mileage for truck trips based on real and available data, air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts were not underestimated.
5. Idling for trucks accessing the Project site is limited to five minutes per State of California regulation. Emissions are mitigated to less than significant with implementation of required mitigation measures.
6. There are no regulatory requirements for onsite generator systems for all uses. The applicant does not propose emergency backup generators. It would be speculative to determine a future owner/tenant will have back-up energy source and to identify what that back-up energy source may be (e.g., diesel generator, battery system, some other technology). If a future backup energy source is proposed, that request would be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations that exist at that point in the future.
7. The City’s default electricity utility provider is the CPA which offers renewable energy portfolios with between 40% to 100% renewable energy, but the modeling was conservatively performed using SCE’s default energy settings with a 36% renewable portfolio. The EIR provides a conservative energy analysis. Monitoring and enforcement of a future tenant’s CPA billing is not feasible. Project conditions, including mitigation measures, are designed to be monitored and enforceable to reduce operational emissions.
8. The EIR adequately analyzed the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions from construction of the Project and other industrial projects and mobile sources. The impact was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable.
In summary, CARE CA‘s September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comments Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
regarding the Energy analysis in the EIR were as follows:
1. The EIR fails to consider water consumption reductions by requiring plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings to reduce the use of potable water to reduce energy consumption.
2. The EIR fails to require increased onsite photovoltaic systems and energy storage facilities in excess of regulatory requirements to offset operational energy consumption.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting the City’s environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) subject matter expert Alan Sako, LEED AP BD+C Principal Consultant, Air Quality, Climate & Acoustics, responded to the above oral comments. In summary, Energy response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. Energy and water impacts were not identified in the EIR. The EIR identifies regulatory requirements, the Project is subject to comply with regulatory requirements, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval to reduce operational emissions.
In summary, CARE CA‘s September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comments regarding the Health Risk analysis in the EIR were as follows:
1. The EIR fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk resulting from Project construction, interim operations, and full operations together to disclose the lifetime cancer risk of residents living near the Project site and along the truck route.
2. The EIR fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative health risk impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting the City’s environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) subject matter expert Alan Sako, LEED AP BD+C Principal Consultant, Air Quality, Climate & Acoustics, responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the Health Risk response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. A combined construction and operational health risk assessment was prepared to evaluate the risk of potential negative health outcomes (cancer, or other acute or chronic conditions) to conservatively calculate the maximum potential health risk impact. The maximum cancer risk and non- cancer impacts would be less than the VCAPCD significance thresholds.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
2. The EIR adequately analyzed the significance of the Project’s cumulative health risk (air quality emissions) from construction of the Project and other industrial projects and mobile sources. The impact was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable.
In summary, CARE CA‘s September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comment regarding the Noise analysis in the EIR was as follows:
1. The EIR fails to validate its traffic noise model against actual site-specific measurements. The noise study is unsupported by substantial evidence.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting the City’s environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) subject matter expert Alan Sako, LEED AP BD+C Principal Consultant, Air Quality, Climate & Acoustics, responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the Noise response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. The noise model used established baseline conditions, was properly validated, considered worst-case conditions, and provided substantial evidence.
In summary, CARE CA September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comment regarding the Public Utilities analysis in the EIR was as follows:
1. The EIR fails to conduct a quantitative fire flow analysis.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting the City staff responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the Public Utilities response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. The City’s Public Works Department, Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department staff reviewed the proposed project, and City staff concluded it was reasonable to assume the existing infrastructure and proposed onsite infrastructure will provide water and wastewater to the project with enough available capacity, adequate flow, and not require off-site improvements (e.g., no pumps) to support the proposed project. Utility compliance will be verified at plan-check.
In summary, CARE CA September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comment regarding Recirculation of the EIR was as follows:
1. The EIR 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.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting City staff responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the Recirculation response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. The thresholds to recirculate the EIR have not been met. No comments received since publishing the Final EIR constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The Final EIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.
In summary, CARE CA September 8, 2025, Planning Commission comments regarding the EIR Findings:
1. The EIR Findings lack substantial evidence and is unsupported by evidence in the record due to the major flaws in the Project’s environmental review.
At the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting City staff responded to the above oral comments. In summary, the EIR Findings lack substantial evidence response to comments concluded, the EIR:
1. CEQA Findings with substantial evidence have been made (see FEIR Appendix O).
The Planning Commission found no merit in the comments received. The corrected text in the FEIR Response to Comments did not change the analysis or result in significant new impacts, so the EIR does not need revision or recirculation. The appellant’s allegations provide no evidence indicating significant unmitigated impacts.
CONCLUSION
The proposed industrial project complies with the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (TOMC) and all applicable guidelines and ordinances. Both appeals restate comments previously addressed in the Final EIR. Staff concludes that the Final EIR satisfies CEQA, the Planning Commission’s actions were supported by substantial evidence, and the appeals present no new information requiring further review.
Staff recommends that City Council deny the appeals filed by SAFER and CARE CA, uphold the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final EIR (SCH No. 2023020425), adoption of the MMRP, and approval of project entitlements, as reflected in the attached resolutions (Attachment #7).
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
LEVINE ACT (California Government Code § 84308):
This item is subject to the Levine Act. City Councilmembers who have received a campaign contribution of more than $500 (aggregated) within the preceding 12 months from a party or their agent/representative, or a financially-interested participant involved in this proceeding may do either of the following: (1) disclose the contribution on the record and recuse themselves from this proceeding; or if applicable (2) return the portion of the contribution that exceeds $500 within 30 days from the time the official knew or should have known about the contribution, and participate in the proceeding.
All parties and their agents/representatives must disclose on the record of this proceeding any aggregated contribution of more than $500 made to any Councilmember within the preceding 12 months. Councilmembers are prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a campaign contribution of more than $500 (aggregated) from a party, their agent/representative, or a financially-interested participant during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is made. In addition, a party, their agent/representative, or a financially- interested participant is prohibited from contributing more than $500 (aggregated) to a Councilmember during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is made.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE:
Meets the following City Council goal(s):
B. Provide municipal government leadership which is open and responsive to residents, and is characterized by ethical behavior, stability, promoting public trust, transparency, confidence in the future, and cooperative interaction among civic leaders, residents, business representatives, and staff, while recognizing and respecting legitimate differences of opinion on critical issues facing the City.
D. Maintain strong commitment to public safety (including Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Services, and Emergency Management) to ensure City remains one of the safest Cities in the United States with a population over 100,000.
I. Maintain a strong local employment base geared toward retaining high quality businesses; Sustain a healthy business community; and, Diversify the local economy, with a specific emphasis on small businesses and high technology/biomedical jobs.
PREPARED BY: Scott Kolwitz, Sr. Planner
Attachments:
Attachment #1 – SAFER Appeal Application/Grounds of Appeal Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving the Conejo Summit Project October 21, 2025
1 4
0 0
Attachment #2 – CARE CA Appeal Application/Grounds of Appeal Attachment #3 – September 8, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment #4 – Planning Commission Supplemental Information Packets 1 – 3
Attachment #5 – Planning Commission Resolution 12 2025 PC Approval of the Conejo Summit Project
Attachment #6 – Supplemental Report Response to Comments for the 2025 Smallwood Report
Attachment #7 – City Council Resolution Denying Appeal, Approving the Conejo Summit Project
Documents Provided Under Separate Cover:
#1 – Draft EIR (CEQA-2022-70771)
#2 – Final EIR (CEQA-2022-70771)
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)