Daylight Apartments

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared by City of Thousand Oaks Community Development Department 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, California 91362 Contact: Nizar Slim, Senior Planner

prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003

March 2021

Daylight Apartments

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared by Community Development Department 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, California 91362 Contact: Nizar Slim, Senior Planner

prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003

March 2021

This report prepared on 50 percent recycled paper with 50 percent post-consumer content

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Initial Study ...... 1 1. Project Title ...... 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address ...... 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...... 1 4. Project Location ...... 1 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ...... 1 6. General Plan Designation ...... 5 7. Zoning...... 5 8. Regional Setting ...... 5 9. Description of Project ...... 5 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...... 12 11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ...... 12 12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ...... 12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 13 Determination ...... 13 Environmental Checklist ...... 15 1 Aesthetics ...... 15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 23 3 Air Quality ...... 25 4 Biological Resources ...... 37 5 Cultural Resources ...... 43 6 Energy ...... 49 7 Geology and Soils ...... 53 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 63 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 75 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 79 11 Land Use and Planning ...... 85 12 Mineral Resources ...... 87 13 Noise ...... 89 14 Population and Housing ...... 101 15 Public Services ...... 103 16 Recreation ...... 107

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration i City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

17 Transportation ...... 109 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 113 19 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 115 20 Wildfire...... 119 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 123 References ...... 127 Bibliography ...... 127 List of Preparers ...... 132

Tables Table 1 Project Characteristics ...... 6 Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants ...... 27 Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions...... 31 Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ...... 32 Table 5 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction ...... 50 Table 6 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Operation ...... 51 Table 7 SCE Energy Intensity Factors ...... 68 Table 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ...... 69 Table 9 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...... 70 Table 10 Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ...... 71 Table 11 Vibration Damage Potential ...... 91 Table 12 Vibration Annoyance Potential ...... 92 Table 13 Project Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results ...... 94 Table 14 City of Thousand Oaks Stationary Noise Standards ...... 95 Table 15 Modeled HVAC ...... 97 Table 16 Existing and Proposed Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 98 Table 17 VMT Analysis Summary ...... 111

Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2 Project Site Location ...... 3 Figure 3 Existing Site Layout ...... 4 Figure 4 Proposed Project Site Plan ...... 7 Figure 5 Typical Apartment Building Elevations ...... 8 Figure 6 Hotel Building Elevations ...... 9 Figure 7 Keyview Map of Visual Simulations ...... 17

ii Table of Contents

Figure 8 View of Project Site Facing Southeast from the Intersection of Newbury Road and Kelley Road ...... 18 Figure 9 View of Project Site Facing East-Northeast from Kelley Road ...... 19 Figure 10 View of Project Site Facing Southwest from Newbury Road ...... 20 Figure 11 View of Project Site Southwest from Northbound U.S. Highway 101 ...... 21 Figure 12 Surface Geology of the Project Site ...... 59 Figure 13 Sound Level Measurement Locations ...... 93

Appendices Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment Appendix C Cultural Resources Report Appendix D Energy Usage Calculations Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F Preliminary Drainage Report Appendix G Noise Measurements and Calculations Appendix H Traffic and Circulation Study

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration iii City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

iv Initial Study

Initial Study

1. Project Title

Daylight Apartments

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

City of Thousand Oaks, Community Development Department 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, California 91362

3. Contact Person and Phone Number

Nizar Slim, Senior Planner 805-449-2302 [email protected]

4. Project Location

The 10.7-acre project site is located south of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) in the City of Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, California at 1872 Newbury Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 660-0- 050-010), immediately south of Newbury Road and east of Kelley Road. Two structures currently exist on the northwestern corner of the site, which were formerly utilized by the Conejo Valley Unified School District’s former maintenance and operations facilities and a continuation high school. The remainder of the project site contains remnants of a parking lot and ornamental and ruderal vegetation. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in the region and Figure 2 shows the location of the project site in its neighborhood context. It is noted, due to the most recent aerial imagery available, Figure 2 shows several buildings on the project site that have been since been demolished and removed from the site. Figure 3 shows the existing project site plan, which is representative of the existing conditions of the project site.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

Daylight Thousand Oaks, LLC 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90025

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map

2 Initial Study

Figure 2 Project Site Location

Note: Due to the most recent aerial imagery available, this figure shows several buildings on the project site that have been since been demolished and removed from the site. See Figure 3 for the existing project site plan, which is representative of the existing conditions of the project site.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Figure 3 Existing Site Layout

4 Initial Study

6. General Plan Designation

Existing: Commercial Proposed: Commercial/Residential

7. Zoning

Existing: Highway and Arterial Business (C-2) Proposed: Specific Plan (SP)

8. Regional Setting

The City of Thousand Oaks is located within Ventura County. It is approximately 24 miles east of the City of Ventura and 30 miles northwest of the Los Angeles International Airport. Thousand Oaks is bordered by Santa Rosa Valley to the north, Lindero Canyon to the east, the Santa Monica Mountains and Pacific Ocean to the south, and coastal Ventura County to the west. Regional access to the project site is available from the Ventura Freeway (U.S. 101) to Rancho Conejo Boulevard/Borchard Road and then Newbury Road.

9. Description of Project

The proposed Daylight Apartments project (herein referred to as “project”) would include construction of 218 two- and three-story multi-family residential apartments, as well as a 120-room, three-story hotel. The apartment complex would include 12 buildings on the western and southeastern portions of the project site. The complex would include 14 micro units (about 500 square feet [sf] each), 29 studio units (about 600 sf each), 88 one-bedroom units (about 750 sf each), and 87 two-bedroom units (about 1,150 to 1,240 sf each), in addition to a leasing office, community room, and pool area. The project would include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the two existing on-site historic buildings in accordance with local historical preservation requirements. One of the rehabilitated building would be used as a community room and the other would be used as the leasing office. Of the 218 apartments, 26 units would accommodate low-income households. The proposed 69,261-sf hotel (with a 23,491-sf building footprint) would be located on the northeastern portion of the site. The hotel would include a lobby, a gym, meeting rooms, a breakfast area, laundry rooms, and outdoor patios. The project would entail a total of 13 buildings, including the two existing buildings that would be rehabilitated. The buildings would feature Mission Revival architecture, which would complement the existing on-site buildings as well as the commercial buildings located to the west and east of the project site. Building finishes would include stucco, stone accents, boosted clay tile roofing, multi- pane windows, and trellises organized in a manner to break down the building scale and massing. A summary of the proposed project is shown in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan, and Figure 5 and Figure 6 show elevations for a typical apartment building and the hotel, respectively.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 1 Project Characteristics General Total building area 297,885 sf

Total building footprint area 109,166 sf

Maximum apartment building height 47.5 feet

Average height of hotel 55 feet Apartment Units Micro (about 500 sf each) 14 Studio (about 600 sf each) 29 One-bedroom (about 750 sf each 88 Two-bedroom (about 1,150 to 1,240 sf each) 87

Total Apartment Units 218 Parking Spaces Standard 533 ADA compliant 21

Total 554

Subterranean spaces 277 Surface spaces 277

Bicycle Parking Stalls Short-term parking 92 Long-term parking (lockers) 84

Total 176 Landscaping No landscaping (buildings only) 109,166 sf (24%) Landscape area 85,192 sf (18%) Pavement/pool/hardscape area 262,140 sf (58%)

Total 465,656 sf (100%)

sf: square feet

6 Initial Study

Figure 4 Proposed Project Site Plan

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Figure 5 Typical Apartment Building Elevations

8 Initial Study

Figure 6 Hotel Building Elevations

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

10 Initial Study

Open Space and Landscaping The apartment complex would include a small park in the center and pockets of open space of the western side. In addition, each apartment would include private open space between 115 and 180 sf in area. The project site would be landscaped with trees, including difference species of oaks (Quercus spp.), shrubs, vines, and groundcovers. The project would also include water features, concrete pavers, and seating areas.

Parking The project would include subterranean and at-grade parking areas with a total of 554 parking spaces, which is 21 spaces more than required by the City. The subterranean parking area would include 277 spaces and the surface parking area would include 277 spaces. The subterranean parking area would be exclusively used by apartment tenants. Of the 554 parking spaces, 21 would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, which is three more ADA spaces than required. Additionally, hotel parking would include 10 spaces for electric vehicle charging and apartment parking would include 41 electric vehicle charging spaces.

Sidewalk Improvements The sidewalk along the project site’s western boundary on Kelley Road is currently discontinuous. The project would address the existing sidewalk break along Kelley Road by providing a continuous sidewalk along the project frontage on Kelley Road that would connect to the existing sidewalk on Newbury Road.

Stormwater Drainage The project would include construction of an on-site storm drain and detention storage system sized to convey the 100-year frequency storm event and detain the excess runoff volume to limit maximum discharge to the 10-year frequency storm event. The system would be designed to capture and convey the peak site runoff flows from the 100-year frequency storm event to a proposed subsurface detention and outlet flow metering box facility capable of satisfying the retention and stormwater outlet mitigation requirements. An existing 36-inch drainage pipe would be removed from the site and re-routed to within the public right of ways of Kelley Road and Newbury Road to ultimately be reconnected to the existing 4-foot by 5.5-foot concrete box culvert running under Newbury Road. Approximately 46 feet of the existing pipe would remain from the northern boundary of the project site to receive the drainage coming from the new on-site drainage system. The proposed storm drain system would ultimately outlet a maximum of the developed 10-year frequency flows from the site into the remaining portion of the existing storm drain pipe.

Energy-Efficient Features The proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24) requirements to provide energy-efficient development by including sustainability features such as water-efficient fixtures and landscaping; energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; roof overhangs to provide solar shading; and drip irrigation. Additionally, the rehabilitated buildings would be brought into compliance with Title 24.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Construction Due to the proposed subterranean parking garage, the project would require cut of approximately 63,349 cubic yards of soil. The project would also require approximately 31,024 cubic yards of fill, for a total export of 35,125 cubic yards of soil from the project site. It is anticipated the maximum depth of ground disturbance would not exceed 16 feet. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in fall/winter 2021 and is anticipated to be completed in approximately 12 months.

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

The project site is in an urbanized area of Thousand Oaks. The project site is currently occupied by vacant, former Conejo Valley Unified School District maintenance and operation facilities buildings. Newbury Road, U.S. 101, and residential areas are located to the north of the project site, commercial and hotel uses are located to the east, additional commercial uses are located to the west, and residential areas are located to the south.

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

The City of Thousand Oaks is the lead agency for this project, and no approvals are required from any other agency. The project requires the following discretionary approvals from the City: . General Plan Land Use Amendment to change the land use designation from Commercial to Commercial/Residential . Creation of a Specific Plan . Zone Change from Highway and Arterial Business (C-2) to Specific Plan (SP) . Residential Planned Development Permit for the construction of 218 multi-family residential apartments (including 26 affordable units) . Development Permit for a 120-room hotel and the preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of a designated landmark . Lot Line Adjustment . Oak Tree Permit for the removal and encroachment of protected oak trees

12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?

The City of Thousand Oaks has not received tribal requests for consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.

12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ■ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and ■ Air Quality Forestry Resources ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy

■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas □ Hazards and Hazardous Emissions Materials □ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources

■ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services

□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources

□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance

Determination Based on this initial evaluation: □ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

14 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Environmental Checklist 1 Aesthetics Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ □ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ ■ □ □ c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The project site is located along the urbanized visual setting on U.S. 101, which is a locally- designated scenic highway/corridor (City of Thousand Oaks 1974). The City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Conservation Element designates scenic vistas, such as hillside terrain (greater than 25 percent slope) and prominent knolls, hills, and landforms (City of Thousand Oaks 2013). There are no designated scenic vistas on or near the project site; however, the Santa Monica Mountains are visible from the project site and Newbury Road adjacent to the project site. The project site is located on previously developed land along Newbury Road. As viewed from Newbury Road, the project would partially obstruct views of the Santa Monica Mountains; however, the views are intermittent when traveling along Newbury Road, due to existing residential developments to the east, south, and west of the project site. As an infill project in an urbanized area, the project would provide a consistent development in relation to the surrounding uses and would not substantially obstruct views of the Santa Monica Mountains or other scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Although U.S. 101 is eligible for listing as a state scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), it is not yet officially designated as such (Caltrans 2020a), although U.S. 101 is a locally-designated scenic highway/corridor (City of Thousand Oaks 1974). The proposed project would include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of two existing historic buildings, and construction of additional buildings on-site that would have similar architectural styles as the existing buildings. This would preserve the scenic quality of the existing historic buildings. The project site and vicinity do not contain rock outcroppings but the site contains multiple protected trees per the City’s ordinances. As detailed in Section 4, Biological Resources, implementation of the project may result in the removal of oak trees; however, the project applicant would be required to adhere to the regulatory compliance with the City of Thousand Oaks Oak Tree Permit application requirements, per Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which includes the replacement of removed protected trees. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated to scenic resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project site is located in an urbanized area developed primarily with commercial land uses. The site is zoned Highway and Arterial Business and the project involves development of residential uses. The project would require a Zone Change from Arterial Business to Specific Plan. Additionally, a General Plan Amendment is requested to alter the existing Commercial land use designation to Commercial/Residential. As discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, with implementation of the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment as well as adherence to the development requirements governing scenic quality under the proposed Specific Plan, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and land use regulations governing scenic quality. Visual simulations are shown in Figure 7 through Figure 11. The two existing buildings on-site are single story and located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Newbury Road and Kelley Road (see Photo 1a on Figure 8). The proposed project would include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of two existing historic buildings within the project site, and construction of additional two- and three-story buildings on-site with similar architectural styles as the existing buildings (see Photo 1b on Figure 8, Photo 2b on Figure 9, and Photo 3b on Figure 11). The architectural style of the proposed buildings would also be similar to adjacent one- and two-story commercial centers along Newbury Road. The proposed three-story buildings would be intermixed with the proposed one-and two-story buildings. The entire project site would be landscaped with trees, shrubs, plants, and groundcovers that would be similar to existing plantings in the project area. From U.S. 101, the project would be seen for approximately 11 seconds at a time, as the project site is visible for approximately 0.2 mile traveling either north or south on the freeway. In addition, views from U.S. 101 would be partially obstructed by retaining walls, intervening vegetation and existing buildings, and vehicles on the freeway. See Figure 11 for the existing and proposed views of the project site from northbound U.S. 101.

16 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics

Figure 7 Keyview Map of Visual Simulations

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Figure 8 View of Project Site Facing Southeast from the Intersection of Newbury Road and Kelley Road

18 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics

Figure 9 View of Project Site Facing East-Northeast from Kelley Road

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Figure 10 View of Project Site Facing Southwest from Newbury Road

20 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics

Figure 11 View of Project Site Southwest from Northbound U.S. Highway 101

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

A residential area containing two-story duplexes and tall, mature trees is located immediately south of the project site. The proposed buildings would be mostly obstructed from public views in this residential area due to intervening tall and full, mature evergreen trees and the duplexes. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? A significant impact would occur if the project introduced a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project site is in an urbanized commercial area with moderate levels of existing lighting and glare due to the site’s proximity to existing commercial developments and its location along Newbury Road and proximity to U.S. 101. Primary sources of nighttime light in the vicinity include lighting associated with existing developments, streetlights along Newbury Road and Kelley Road, and headlights from vehicles on the streets and in parking lots. The project would include exterior security lighting, which would incrementally add to existing sources of light and glare in the surrounding area. Exterior street lighting would consist of decorative fixtures that would be compatible with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. All project lighting would meet City requirements and would be focused, directed, and arranged to prevent glare and direct illumination on streets or adjoining properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that is incompatible with adjacent uses or that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

22 Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■ c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site was previously developed with buildings and parking areas, and is in an urbanized area of the City. The site is designated Commercial and is zoned Highway and Arterial Business. Per the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as Urban and Built Up Land (DOC 2020a). The surrounding parcels are designated as commercial and residential, and are currently developed with hotels, shopping venues, and residential duplexes. Additionally, there are no agricultural uses occurring on the project site or its vicinity. Accordingly, the project would not be located on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). The project site is not zoned for agricultural use, timberland or forest, and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The project site is in an urbanized area and is not located adjacent to Farmland or forestland, and implementation of the project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Farmland or forestland that could lead to their conversion to non-agricultural or non-forest uses, respectively. Therefore, no impact to agriculture or forestry resources would occur. NO IMPACT

24 Environmental Checklist Air Quality 3 Air Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ ■ □ □ c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □ d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■

Overview of Air Pollution The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic 1 compounds (VOC)/reactive organic compounds (ROC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of up to ten microns (PM10) and up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: . Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.

1 CARB defines VOC and ROC similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROC and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROC is used in this IS-MND.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

. Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories: . On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. . Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles. Air quality at a given location is a function of several factors, including the quantity and type of pollutants emitted locally and regionally, as well as the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and topography. The project site is located in Ventura County in the South Central Coast Air Basin (Basin). The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the Basin, which has moderate variability in temperatures, tempered by coastal processes. The air quality in the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emission sources, such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, industry, and weather. In addition, San Joaquin Valley Fever (Valley Fever), an infectious disease caused by the fungus Coccidioides immitis, is a disease of concern in the Basin. This disease is related to air pollution because infection is caused by inhalation of Coccidioides immitis spores that have become airborne when dry, dusty soil or dirt is disturbed by natural processes, such as wind or earthquakes, or by human-induced ground- disturbing activities, such as construction, farming, or other activities (Ventura County Air Pollution Control District [VCAPCD] 2003). In 2019, the total number of cases of Valley Fever reported in California was 9,004, with 364 cases reported in Ventura County (California Department of Public Health 2019).

Air Quality Standards and Attainment The Basin is under the jurisdiction of the VCAPCD, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. The project site is within the portion of the Basin overseen by the VCAPCD. The VCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure the NAAQS and CAAQS are met. If the standards are met, the Basin is classified as being in “attainment.” If the standards are not met, the Basin is classified as being in “nonattainment,” and the VCAPCD is required to develop strategies to meet the standards. According to the CARB Area Designation Maps, the project site is located in a region identified as being in nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS and the PM10 CAAQS (CARB 2018a and 2019a through 2019d). The health effects associated with criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment are described in Table 2.

26 Environmental Checklist Air Quality

Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant Adverse Effects

Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Suspended particulate (1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in matter (PM10) pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).a

a More detailed discussions on the health effects associated with exposure to suspended particulate matter can be found in the following documents: USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, October 2004. Source: USEPA, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants

Air Quality Management Under State law, the VCAPCD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which Ventura County is in non-compliance. The VCAPCD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous 2007 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP, adopted on February 14, 2017, incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2007 AQMP, including the approval of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) that was finalized in 2015. The 2016 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2007 AQMP and includes attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard (VCAPCD 2017).

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds The analysis presented in this section is based upon guidance found in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (Guidelines), adopted by the VCAPCD in 2003. The VCAPCD’s Guidelines recommend specific air emission criteria and threshold levels for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality within the Basin. The project would have a significant impact if operational emissions exceed 25 pounds per day of ROC or 25 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOX). The 25 pounds per day thresholds for ROC and NOX are not intended to be applied to construction emissions because such emissions are temporary. Nevertheless, the VCAPCD’s Guidelines state that construction-related emissions should be mitigated if estimates of ROC or NOX emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment exceed 25 pounds per day for either ROC or NOX. The VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for particulate matter for either construction or operation. However, the VCAPCD indicates that a project that may generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person, or which may cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property, would have a significant air quality impact. This threshold applies to the generation of fugitive dust during construction grading and excavation activities. The VCAPCD

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Guidelines recommend application of fugitive dust mitigation measures for all dust-generating activities. Such measures include minimizing the project disturbance area, watering the site prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, covering all truck loads, and limiting on-site vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour or less. The VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) for either construction or operation. However, the VCAPCD states a CO hotspot screening analysis should be conducted for any project with indirect CO emissions greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds (i.e., 25 pounds per day) that may significantly impact roadway intersections currently operating at, or that are expected to operate at, Level of Service (LOS) E or F. A CO hotspot screening analysis should also be conducted for any project-impacted roadway intersection at which a CO hotspot might occur (VCACPD 2003). If project emissions do not meet these criteria, then the project would have a less than significant impact related to CO hotspots. However, if project emissions exceed these criteria and the screening analysis demonstrates there may be a CO hotspot, the VCAPCD recommends use of the CALINE4 model to determine whether the project would create or contribute to an existing CO hotspot. The VCAPCD has not established a significance threshold for impacts related to Valley Fever. However, the VCAPCD recommends consideration of the following factors that may indicate a project’s potential to result in impacts related to Valley Fever: . Disturbance of the top soil of undeveloped land (to a depth of about 12 inches) . Dry, alkaline, sandy soils . Virgin, undisturbed, non-urban areas . Windy areas . Archaeological resources probable or known to exist in the area (e.g., Native American midden sites) . Special events (fairs, concerts) and motorized activities (motocross track, All Terrain Vehicle activities) on unvegetated soil (non-grass) . Non-native population (i.e., out-of-area construction workers)

Applicable VCAPCD Rules and Regulations The VCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of projects. Relevant rules and regulations to the project include: . Rule 50 (Opacity). This rule sets opacity standards on the discharge from sources of air contaminants. This rule would apply during construction of the project. . Rule 51 (Nuisance). This rule prohibits any person from discharging air contaminants or any other material from a source that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public or which endangers the comfort, health, safety, or repose to any considerable number of persons or the public. The rule would apply during construction and operational activities. . Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust generators, including construction and demolition projects, to implement control measures limiting the amount of dust from vehicle

28 Environmental Checklist Air Quality

track-out, earth moving, bulk material handling, and truck hauling activities. The rule would apply during construction and operational activities.2 . Rule 55.1 (Paved Roads and Public Unpaved Roads). This rule requires fugitive dust generators to begin the removal of visible roadway accumulation within 72 hours of any written notification from the VCAPCD. The use of blowers is expressly prohibited under any circumstances. This rule also requires controls to limit the amount of dust from any construction activity or any earthmoving activity on a public unpaved road. This rule would apply throughout all construction activities.

. Rule 55.2 (Street Sweeping Equipment). This rule requires the use of PM10 efficient street sweepers for routine street sweeping and for removing vehicle track-out pursuant to Rule 55. This rule would apply during all construction and operational activities. . Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings). This rule sets limits on the VOC content of architectural coatings. Non-flat coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content, flat coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content and traffic marking coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content. The project would be required to comply with this rule. . Rule 74.4 (Cutback Asphalt). This rule sets limits on the type of application and VOC content of cutback and emulsified asphalt. The project would be required to comply with the application type and VOC content standards set forth in this rule.

Methodology Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., Enclosed Parking with Elevator, Parking Lot, Hotel, and Apartments Mid Rise), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of the project as described under Project Description. Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on- site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the amount of time equipment is in operation by emission factors. Construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on the standard CalEEMod assumptions regarding construction schedule and construction equipment list. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. Additionally, the demolition phase was removed, as existing buildings would be rehabilitated rather than removed, and the number of days per week where construction activities would occur was adjusted from five to six. This analysis assumes that the project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the project would comply with VCAPCD Rules 55 and 74.2. Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. The trip generation rates for the hotel and apartments mid-rise developments were based on average trip rates for the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9th edition of the Trip Generation Manual (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2017). Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings. The output reports produced using CalEEMod are included as Appendix A.

2 The emission estimates of particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 shown in Table 3 reflect application of water to exposed soils twice daily to reduce dust emissions during grading activities, which would be required for compliance with Rule 55.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A significant air quality impact could occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable AQMP or if the project would represent a substantial hindrance to implementing the policies or obtaining the goals of that plan. According to the VCAPCD’s Guidelines, a project may be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan if it would cause the existing population to exceed forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP. The VCAPCD adopted the 2016 Ventura County AQMP to demonstrate a strategy for, and reasonable progress toward, attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard (VCAPCD 2017). The 2016 Ventura County AQMP relies on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) forecasts of regional population growth in its AQMP population projections.3 The proposed project involves construction of approximately 218 residential units, which would cause a direct increase in the City’s population by introducing new residents to the project site. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would provide housing for approximately 587 future residents. The project may also cause an indirect increase in the City’s population by providing new employment opportunities, which may result in the relocation of employees to the City. According to the United States Green Business Council (USGBC), hotels typically employ one person per 1,124 sf. Therefore, the proposed hotel would be anticipated to employ approximately 415 people (USGBC 2008). Assuming conservatively that all employees relocate from outside Thousand Oaks, the project would increase the population by approximately 1,002 residents (587 residents + 415 employees). Therefore, the project would increase the City’s 2020 population from 126,484 persons (DOF 2020) to 127,486 persons, an increase of 0.8 percent. The 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts an increase in the City’s population to 131,700 persons by 2040, which is an increase of 5,216 persons compared to existing 2020 conditions. The project would constitute approximately 4 percent of SCAG’s projected growth for the City. Therefore, the project is within the growth assumptions that underlie the emissions forecasts in the 2016 AQMP. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and no impact would occur. NO IMPACT b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Construction Emissions Construction activities would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil disturbance, exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles and material delivery trucks, and ROC emissions from application of materials such as asphalt and paints. The project’s maximum daily pollutant emissions generated by construction activities are shown in Table 3. As noted earlier under Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds, the VCAPCD’s 25 pounds per day thresholds for ROC and NOX do not apply to construction emissions because such emissions are temporary. Therefore, construction air quality impacts would be less than significant. However, the VCAPCD recommends mitigation if ROC or NOX emissions exceed 25 pounds per day. As shown in

3 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). However, the 2016 AQMP was adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; therefore, these forecasts are utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP.

30 Environmental Checklist Air Quality

Table 3, both ROC and NOX emissions would exceed 25 pounds per day. Therefore, per VCAPCD’s Guidelines, construction-related impacts would not be significant, but mitigation to reduce ROC and NOX emissions is recommended.

Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2021 4 49 25 0 20 12 2022 36 35 42 0 5 2

Notes: All emissions modeling was completed in CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including VCACPD Rule 55 and Rule 74.2). Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is recommended to reduce construction emissions of ROC and NOX, as recommended by the VCAPCD. With implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project’s maximum daily ROC and NOX emissions would be reduced to 34 and 30 pounds per day during construction, respectively. (see Appendix A).

AQ-1 Ozone Precursor Control Measures The project developer must implement the following ozone precursor control measures throughout all phases of construction. The project developer must include in construction contracts the control measures required: . All off-road diesel construction equipment must meet USEPA Tier 4 emission standards . Equipment engines must be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer's specifications . In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction must be limited to five minutes at any location.

Operational Emissions Operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (i.e., fireplaces, architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating and cooking), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). Table 4 summarizes the operational air pollutant emissions associated with the project.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

Emission Sources ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 8 0 18 0 0 0 Energy 0 1 1 0 0 0 Mobile 3 10 30 0 10 3 Total 11 11 49 0 10 2 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A Threshold Exceeded No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: All emissions modeling was completed made using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including VCACPD Rule 74.2) and project design features. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children under 14, elderly over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include multi-family residences approximately 30 feet south of the project site. The VCAPCD states that localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from fugitive dust, CO, toxic air contaminants, odors, and entrained fungal spores that cause Valley Fever (VCAPCD 2003). The project’s impacts related to each of these pollutants is detailed below.

Fugitive Dust The VCAPCD requires implementation of the fugitive dust control measures described in Rules 55, 55.1, and 55.2 as part of all project-related dust-generating operations and activities (VCAPCD 2003). These measures address both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. The project would be required to implement these fugitive dust control measures; therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are high enough that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and State eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016). The entire Basin is in conformance with State and federal CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. No stations in Ventura County have monitored CO for the last 15 years. In 2004, the El Rio-Rio Mesa School #2 monitoring station detected an eight-hour maximum CO concentration of 1.5 ppm, which is substantially below the State and federal standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2019a and 2019b). The VCAPCD recommends conducting a CO hotspot screening analysis for any project the meets both of the following conditions:

32 Environmental Checklist Air Quality

1. The project would generate indirect CO emissions that are greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds (i.e., 25 pounds per day); and 2. The project would generate traffic that would significantly impact congestion levels at roadway intersections currently operating at, or that are expected to operate at, LOS E or F.

As shown in Table 4, the project would generate approximately 30 pounds of indirect mobile source CO emissions per day. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project would not significantly affect congestion levels at roadway intersections. As a result, the project does not trigger the need for a CO hotspot analysis and would not cause or contribute to a CO hotspot. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Construction Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2021) and is therefore the focus of this analysis. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a temporary period. Construction of the project would occur over approximately 14 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 14 months) is approximately three percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities. These activities would last for approximately 56 days. This would represent approximately one percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned discussion, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). The primary sources of potential air toxics associated with project operation include diesel particulate matter (DPM) from delivery trucks (e.g., truck traffic on local streets and idling on adjacent streets). However, according to VCAPCD’s Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003) and CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005), typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes (e.g., chrome plating, electrical manufacturing, and petroleum refining). The project would not include these types of potential industrial manufacturing process sources. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed commercial use would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Because the project would not contain substantial TAC sources and is consistent with the CARB and VCAPCD guidelines, it would not result in the exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Therefore, impacts related to TACs would be less than significant.

San Joaquin Valley Fever Construction activities, including site preparation and grading, would have the potential to release Coccidioides immitis spores. However, the population of Thousand Oaks has been and would continue to be exposed to Valley Fever from agricultural and construction activities occurring throughout the region. In addition, substantial increases in the number of reported cases of Valley Fever tend to occur only after major ground-disturbing events such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake (VCAPCD 2003). Construction of the project would not result in comparable major ground disturbance for construction of the subterranean parking garage, and compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) would limit the number of spores released during grading. The project would involve grading of previously undisturbed soils. However, the project site is relatively small in size, located in an urban area, and does not contain dry, alkaline soils. In addition, the project does not include special events (such as fairs or concerts) or motorized activities that would result in substantial ground disturbance during operation. Therefore, per VCAPCD guidance, construction and operation of the project would not result in a substantial increase in entrained fungal spores that cause Valley Fever above existing background levels, and impacts related to Valley Fever would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

34 Environmental Checklist Air Quality d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion. Overall, project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Based on the VCAPCD Guidelines (2003), a project may have a significant impact if it would generate an objectionable odor to a degree that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or to the public, or which would endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which would cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Land uses and industrial operations known to emit objectionable odors include wastewater treatment facilities, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, fiberglass operations, refineries, feed lots/dairies, and composting facilities (VCAPCD 2003). The project would include residences and a hotel, which are not associated with types of activities that emit objectionable odors. Since the project would not directly or indirectly generate any objectionable odors or other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

36 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources 4 Biological Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □ b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □ d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ ■ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ ■ □ □ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■

Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) for the project site in January 2021. The BRA is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

(IS-MND). The project site is a disturbed, previously developed parcel that is currently predominantly vacant except for two historic buildings and remnants of a parking lot. According to the BRA, existing on-site vegetation consists mostly of ornamental plants and non-native, ruderal species. No special-status species were observed during the field survey or identified as having potential to occur due to the disturbed condition of the site. Similarly, no sensitive plant communities, wetlands, or aquatic features are present. The site contains several coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and other trees protected by the City of Thousand Oaks. These trees, as well as other vegetation located on and adjacent to the property, provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. No other sensitive biological resources occur on or adjacent to the project site. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No special-status species were observed in the study area during the field survey and none have potential to occur due to lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed and developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties. For these reasons, project construction and operational activities would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to special-status species. However, birds protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) could nest in the project site and adjacent areas. Construction of the proposed project could therefore result in direct or indirect impacts to protected nesting birds during the nesting season. Although no raptor nests were observed, raptor nesting habitat is present in the larger trees occurring in the site, and nesting raptors could be impacted if they are utilizing these trees during project construction. Implementation of a nesting bird survey prior to construction, as described below, would reduce direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds and raptors. Therefore, due to the presence of suitable habitat for nesting birds, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required, which would reduce project’s impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys . To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptor species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, project activities including vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible. . If work must begin during the breeding season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of project activities. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted inside the project footprint plus a 300-foot buffer. Inaccessible parts of the study area shall be scanned using binoculars to ensure 100 percent visual coverage. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of bird species known to occur in southern California communities. . If active nests (those containing eggs, nestlings, or associated with dependent fledglings) are found on-site, an avoidance buffer shall be implemented around each nest and demarcated with fencing or flagging. The size of the buffers shall be determined by the biologist based upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. No project activity shall occur inside a nest buffer until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active.

38 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources

. If no nesting birds are observed during pre-construction surveys, construction activities can commence and no further actions would be necessary.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is located on a previously developed and urbanized area, and the project site does not include sensitive natural communities such as riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, oaks woodlands, or wetlands. The project site is developed with two existing buildings, ornamental landscaping, and remnants of a parking lot. The site is also surrounded by existing urban development. Therefore, no impact to sensitive natural communities would occur. NO IMPACT c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? As the project site is developed with two existing buildings, ornamental landscaping, and remnants of a parking lot, and not located within wetlands, vernal pools, waters of the U.S., or waters of the state, the project would not remove or otherwise impair such areas and would not result in direct impact to wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2020). A small, concrete-channelized drainage is located approximately 125 feet southwest of the biological study area on the west side of Kelley Road that is identified by the USFWS National Wetland Inventory as freshwater emergent wetland. Potential indirect impacts to this unnamed drainage would be minimized by adherence to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for the project, as discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Through the adherence of the Stormwater Prevention Plan, indirect impacts related to the drainage would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? A wildlife corridor contains physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed landscapes and landscapes fragmented by urban development. The project site is not located within a wildlife corridor as established by the City’s Conservation Element (City of Thousand Oaks 2013). As the site is not located within a wildlife corridor, the project would not substantially interfere with migratory corridors or impede wildlife movement. Additionally, the site is not used as a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? A significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources, such as the City Protected4 and Heritage Tree5 Ordinances (“Tree Ordinances”). The Tree Ordinances regulate tree protections, removal permitting, and replacements as applicable. The Tree Ordinances define a Protected Tree as all species of oak (Quercus spp.) over two inches in diameter, as well as southern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and California bay (Umbellularia californica) trees that meet certain size criteria. Coast live oak, California sycamore, and toyon trees that are protected by the City occur in the project site and may be removed as part of project construction. Potentially significant impacts to protected trees would be mitigated to less than significant levels by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-2 Protected Oak Tree and Landmark Trees Implementation of the project shall comply with the City of Thousand Oaks Oak/Landmark Tree Preservation Guidelines. In accordance with these guidelines, an Oak/Landmark Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared that identifies measures to protect oak trees during construction and operations of the project. The Oak/Landmark Tree Report shall follow the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines; include specific information on the location, condition, potential impacts of development; and include an Oak/Landmark Tree Protection Plan that recommends actions and mitigation measures regarding protected trees with any portion of their protected zones within the project site. At a minimum, the plan shall include recommendations on construction monitoring, pruning, root preservation, tree protection zone fencing, and storage/staging of materials and equipment. a) Any protected oak tree that dies or is damaged to the point of requiring removal due to construction activities or is proposed to be removed shall be replaced at the following ratios with coast live oak, valley oak, or other oak tree varieties as approved by the Community Development Department: . Dead or hazardous trees shall be replaced with one 15-gallon tree . Healthy trees not exceeding 48 inches in diameter shall be replaced with two 24-inch box trees and either one 36-inch box tree or 60-inch box tree . Healthy trees exceeding 48 inches in diameter shall be replaced with two 24-inch box trees and either the largest nursery grown oak tree that is available or two 60-inch box trees b) The location of replacement trees shall be on the site. If the project site is unsuitable for planting one or more of the replacement trees, the replacement oaks may be planted on public property or cash payment may be made to the City’s Open Space Conservation Fund in an amount equal to the value of the required replacement trees, as determined by the current tree valuation formula of the International Society of Arborists.

4 City of Thousand Oaks Oak Tree Ordinance (No. 937-NS), Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 42 5 City of Thousand Oaks Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 1217-NS), Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 43

40 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources c) Any protected oak tree proposed to be relocated shall be approved by the Community Development Department and shall not exceed six inches in diameter. A refundable cash security deposit shall be made prior to tree relocation to ensure the survival of the relocated tree. d) If a protected landmark tree dies or is damaged to the point of requiring removal due to construction activities or is proposed to be removed, the Applicant shall adhere to requirements from the City that may include: . Replacement or placement of additional trees on the subject property to offset the impacts associated with loss of a tree, limbs, or encroachment into the protected zone . Relocation of a tree on-site or off-site, or the planting of a new tree off-site to offset the loss of a tree . An objectively observable maintenance and care program to ensure the continued health and care of landmark trees on the property . Payment of a fee or donation of a boxed tree to the City or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the community should a suitable replacement location of the tree not be possible on or off site e) The method of valuation for replacement of landmark trees removed shall be the Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition) by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers; or the number, size, and location of replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is not in an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

42 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources 5 Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ ■ □ □ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ ■ □ □ c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ ■ □ □

This section is based upon the analysis presented in Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in February 2021, which is included as Appendix C to this IS-MND. On September 11, 2020, Rincon requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously conducted cultural resources studies, as well as previously recorded cultural resources within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius extending from the project site. The records search included a review of the Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, and historic buildings surveys. The SCCIC records search identified 31 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site and one previously conducted study from 1975, concluding that a freeway widening/realignment project would have no adverse impact on known archeological resources. The SCCIC records search identified three previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5-mile of the project site, but none are located within or adjacent to the project site (Appendix C). A pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on January 12, 2021 to identify archaeological and built environment resources. Ground visibility throughout the project site was poor (approximately 30 percent) due to vegetation including grass and weeds. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? The project site contains the Timber School property, which collectively consists of the Timber School House and the Timber Auditorium. This property was designated a City of Thousand Oaks Landmark in 2004 and as such is a historical resource under CEQA as defined by Section 15064.5(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Under the proposed project, the Timber School House

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments and Timber Auditorium would be rehabilitated and adaptively reused for a leasing office and a community room.

Direct Impacts With regard to the rehabilitation of the Timber School House and Timber Auditorium, the project could potentially result in significant impacts to the historical resource should the rehabilitation not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) and the project materially impairs the significance of either building. To address the potential impacts, the project applicant retained San Buenaventura Research Associates to prepare a Historic Resources Treatment Plan. The Treatment Plan provides a starting point for establishing what a Standards-compliant rehabilitation would encompass; however, the Treatment Plan is not a project-level rehabilitation plan with a specific adaptive reuse in mind. The Treatment Plan notes additional review and design work is needed to ensure the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse plans not only conform to the Standards, but also take into consideration the State Historic Building Code and ADA compliance. In line with the Treatment Plan recommendations and because the rehabilitation plans remain conceptual in nature, additional mitigation measures are required to ensure the rehabilitation of the two landmark buildings conforms to the Standards, thereby reducing potentially significant direct impacts to a historical resource to less than significant.

Indirect Impacts The new development would result in the construction of 11 new buildings on the site, which would affect the setting of the Timber School House and Timber Auditorium by introducing new visual elements to the property. However, per the Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes to setting only result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource when the resource’s setting is a physical characteristic which justifies its inclusion in a local register. As designated under Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) Resolution No. 3, the Timber School House and the Timber Auditorium are the only two buildings on the site which were landmarked. The resolution states good faith efforts should be made to preserve the pepper trees along Kelley Road; however, neither they nor any other features of the larger property are formally included in the landmark designation. As such, it is reasonable to assume these two building are the only physical characteristics that convey the significance of the Timber School House and the Timber Auditorium. Furthermore, a comparison of the historic and contemporary setting of the Timber School indicates its immediate surroundings have changed substantially since the Timber School House and Timber Auditorium were constructed in 1924 and 1948, respectively. As discussed in the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C), a reasonable period of significance for the property spans from 1924 through 1948 to correspond with the construction of these buildings. Historic aerial photographs confirm the setting of the both the school grounds and the surrounding area were largely undeveloped during and immediately after this general period. Aerial photographs from 1953 depict the school grounds as approximately a quarter of the current 10.7-acre site. Aside from trees marking the boundaries of the much smaller school property, the school grounds were void of any structures or features, and the remaining portion of the present-day 10.7-acre site was completely undeveloped. By the time the two buildings were landmarked in 2004, the setting of both the school property and the larger surrounding area had changed extensively through the addition of additional school buildings on the 10.7-acre site, as well as the construction of the adjacent U.S. 101 and new commercial and residential development. Thus, the historic setting of the Timber School property

44 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources was not intact by the time the property was designated in 2004; however, this circumstance did not limit the ability of the Timber School House of Timber Auditorium to convey their significance or prevent their designation as a historical resource. As such, the setting of the Timber School is not considered a physical feature that accounts for the inclusion of the property in the City’s local register. The new development would further alter the setting, but it would not preclude the resource’s ability to convey its significance or materially impair the resource. Furthermore, the new development is largely consistent with the Standards. It would not destroy historic materials, features or spatial relationships that characterize the property, and the new work would be compatible through its use of stucco and similar materials yet differentiated through its modern design and function. Additionally, the new development could be removed in the future without altering the essential form of and integrity of the two historic school buildings. Therefore, indirect project impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures The following measures are required to ensure the rehabilitation of the Timber School buildings complies with the Standards and the buildings are protected during construction. By adhering to these measures, potential direct impacts to Timber School would be less than significant.

CUL-1 Standards Rehabilitation Review The project team shall retain a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards and possesses a minimum of five years of experience in historic preservation. The input from a historic professional shall take place from conceptual and schematic phases through design development to identify and implement project design elements that will facilitate compliance with the Standards. The qualified historic consultant shall develop a comprehensive inventory of the Timber School’s character-defining features and provide treatment recommendations for each feature. The summary shall follow the guidelines for identifying character-defining features outlined in the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character. The character-defining features summary shall be provided to the project design team to aide in the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic buildings. The qualified consultant shall review the rehabilitation plans at the 65 percent and 90 percent phase and provide recommendations as needed. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the qualified consultant shall prepare a Standards Project Review Memorandum to document the rehabilitation’s compliance with the Standards. This memorandum shall be submitted to the City of Thousand Oaks for review and comment and included in the administrative record upon acceptance.

CUL-2 Mothballing Plan Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified historic consultant shall develop a Mothballing Plan for the historic buildings to prepare the site for a sustained period of vacancy and minimize harm to the buildings. The Mothballing Plan shall include protective fencing around the buildings and periodic checks to confirm the buildings are secure and stabilized. The Mothballing Plan shall follow guidance outlined in the National Park Service–prepared Preservation Brief 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

CUL-3 Interpretive Plan A historic preservation professional qualified who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards shall be selected to prepare an on-site interpretive display to be located near the historic buildings. The interpretive display shall include a brief history of the Timber School and its significance within the community. The interpretive plan shall be installed within one year of the completion of the rehabilitation. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Results of the field survey conducted on January 12, 2021 revealed no evidence of archaeological remains or prehistoric cultural resources within the project site. There are no known archaeological resources on the site. During the grading phase, the project would result in ground disturbing activity and excavation for a subterranean parking lot. Since excavation is required, there is the potential for unanticipated archaeological resources to be discovered during project site grading.

Mitigation Measure With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, impacts pertaining to the potential discovery of archaeological resources would be less than significant.

CUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the unlikely event cultural resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative must also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. If the discovery proves to be NRHP eligible, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? While no formal cemeteries, other places of human internment, or burial grounds or sites are known to occur within the project site area, there is a possibility that human remains can be unexpectedly encountered during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during ground disturbing activities, regulatory requirements specified in State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that no further disturbance occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during construction, the project would be required to adhere to state laws, including those that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code Section 5097) relating to the disposition of Native American burials. Based on the ground disturbance history of the project site, the infill project location, and the proposed depth of excavation, the inadvertent discovery of human remains is not reasonably expected but remains a possibility during ground disturbances. Mitigation Measure CUL-5 establishes a discovery protocol for inadvertent

46 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources discovery of human remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5, impacts with regard to the inadvertent discovery of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5, impacts pertaining to the potential discovery of archaeological resources would be less than significant.

CUL-5 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains In the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, all ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be immediately suspended and redirected elsewhere. All steps required to comply with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be implemented including immediately contacting the Ventura County Medical Examiner’s Office. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Medical Examiner’s Office shall notify the NAHC, which shall determine and notify an MLD. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours of granted access, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

48 Environmental Checklist Energy 6 Energy Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ □ ■

As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2020). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. Most of California’s electricity is generated in-state with approximately 28 percent imported from the northwest and southwest in 2019; however, the state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a and 2021b). In addition, approximately 32 percent of California’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2021a). In 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 accelerated the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes. California is one of the top producers of petroleum in the nation with drilling operations occurring throughout the state but concentrated primarily in Kern and Los Angeles counties. A network of crude oil pipelines connects production areas to oil refineries in the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay area, and the Central Valley. California oil refineries also process Alaskan and foreign crude oil received at ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the San Francisco Bay area (CEC 2021c). California requires all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, which is sourced almost exclusively from in-state refineries. Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 15.4 billion gallons sold in 2019 (CEC 2020). Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.8 billion gallons sold in 2019 (CEC 2020). Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively. a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

Construction The project would require site preparation and grading, including hauling material off-site; pavement and asphalt installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum- based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, , and vehicles used to deliver materials and export soils. The total consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel during project construction was estimated using the assumptions and factors from CalEEMod used to estimate construction air emissions for Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Appendix A). Table 5 presents the estimated construction-related energy consumption. As shown therein, construction equipment and vendor/hauling trips would consume approximately 84,184 gallons of diesel fuel, and construction worker trips would consume approximately 38,091 gallons of gasoline over the construction period. Of the 84,184 gallons of diesel fuel, construction equipment would consume an estimated 53,202 gallons, with hauling and vendor trips consuming 30,982 gallons.

Table 5 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction Fuel Consumption (gallons) Source Gasoline Diesel Construction Equipment & Vendor/Hauling Trips 84,184 Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 38,091 See Appendix D for gasoline and diesel calculations.

Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit off-road diesel vehicles and diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles, respectively, from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, and vendor and haul trucks would be subject to the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, both of which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Electrical power would be consumed to construct the project, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the area. However, construction activities would require minimal electricity consumption and would not be expected to have any adverse impact on available electricity supplies or infrastructure. In addition, per applicable regulatory requirements such as 2019 CALGreen, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and

50 Environmental Checklist Energy demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. Furthermore, in the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Demand Operation of the project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips, including those generated by residents, hotel guests, employees, and solid waste hauling. As shown in Table 6, project operation would require approximately 193,693 gallons of gasoline and 39,618 gallons of diesel fuel for transportation fuels, 1.8 GWh of electricity, and 52,309 U.S. therms of natural gas. Transportation of residents would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the project. Compared to the existing undeveloped site, the project would result increase the use of transportation fuel, electricity and natural gas use.

Table 6 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Operation Source Energy Consumption1 Transportation Fuels2 Gasoline 193,693 gallons 21,265 MMBtu Diesel 39,619 gallons 5,050 MMBtu Electricity 1.8 GWh 6,142 MMBtu Natural Gas Usage 52,309 U.S. therms 4,863 MMBtu Total Project Energy Consumption 32,724 MMBtu 1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source 2 The estimated number of average daily trips associated with the project is used to determine the energy consumption associated with fuel use from operation of the project. According to CalEEMod calculations (see Appendix A), the project would result in approximately 4,483,101 annual VMT. MMBtu: million metric British thermal units; GWh: Gigawatt hours See Appendix D for transportation energy calculation sheets and Appendix A for CalEEMod output results for electricity and natural gas usage.

The project would comply with all standards set in the California Building Standards Code, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) require implementation of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Code Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the Energy Commission. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The standards are updated every three years and each iteration is more energy efficient than the previous standards, with the 2019 standards being 7 percent more efficient for single-family residences and 30 percent more efficient for non- residential land uses than the 2016 standards. The project would be required to comply with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which mandates all new

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments residential uses under three stories must install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected electricity usage. Furthermore, the project would further reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources because the electricity generated by renewable resources provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) continues to increase to comply with State requirements through SB 100, which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Through adherence with the above regulations, operational building energy usage would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would increase housing density in close proximity to existing commercial uses, which would facilitate the use of transit and alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking. The project site is located with 0.25 mile of the “Newbury Road east of Borchard Road” bus stop along Route 40. Route 40 serves The Oaks, Newbury Park, and Newbury Park High School, and connects to Routes 41, 42, and 43 via a transfer location at The Oaks, a local shopping mall. Collectively, these routes serve the core area of Thousand Oaks, and would therefore provide opportunities for residents to use public transit rather than personal automobiles. These factors would minimize the potential of the project to result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. Therefore, operational transportation energy usage would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The City of Thousand Oaks adopted its Energy Action Plan (EAP) in 2012 in partnership with the Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance, which aims to increase energy efficiency, expand renewable energy, and achieve carbon emission reductions at City facilities (City of Thousand Oaks 2013a). The City of Thousand Oaks also adopted the Sustainability Plan for Municipal Operations in 2018, which includes sustainable actions for energy efficiency and strives to reduce energy use for municipal operations (City of Thousand Oaks 2018a). While the EAP and Sustainability Plan serve as plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the City, they do not apply to the project because the project proposes residential and hotel uses and is not a City facility or municipal operation. The EAP for residential, commercial and other municipal uses is currently in development (Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance 2020). The City has not adopted any other local energy efficiency, renewable energy, or climate action plans. However, the General Plan contains several policies related to energy consumption. The Conservation Element contains Policy CO-39, which supports the efforts to reduce GHG emissions, consistent with the intent of the State of California’s California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). The implementation measures of Policy CO-39 include reducing energy use and utilizing sustainable energy sources at City facilities where feasible, in accordance with City- adopted EAP (City of Thousand Oaks 2013a). As mentioned above, the EAP is not applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the energy-related policies outlined in the Conservation Element. No impact related to consistency with plans for energy efficiency and renewable energy would occur. NO IMPACT

52 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils 7 Geology and Soils Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? □ □ ■ □ 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ ■ □ □ 4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? □ ■ □ □ d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? □ ■ □ □ e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■ f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ ■ □ □

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This analysis is based largely on a Geotechnical Evaluation report dated May 22, 2020 provided by Gorian & Associates, Inc. (G&A 2020). The Geotechnical Evaluation is included as Appendix E of this IS-MND. a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? According to the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Safety Element, there are no state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or active faults within the City (City of Thousand Oaks 2014). However, the project site is within the seismically active southern California region and could experience ground shaking in the event of a nearby earthquake. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation for the project, no active or potentially active faults are known to cross or be close to the project site. The closest active fault is the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault Zone which lies approximately 4.5 miles north of the project site (G&A 2020). As the potential for ground rupture due to faulting on-site during the lifetime of the project is considered remote (G&A 2020), and the City would require proposed construction to meet the latest building codes, the project would result in a less than significant impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? As with the majority of southern California, the site is in a seismically active area and has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. The project is located approximately 4.5 miles south of the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault zone, which is considered to have been active within Holocene time (the last 11,000 years). The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project states that because the project site does not contain known active or potentially active faults and is not within an earthquake fault zone, the potential for ground rupture due to faulting on-site during the lifetime of the project is considered remote (G&A 2020). However, the site may be subject to strong ground motion from occasional earthquakes in the region (G&A 2020). Potential impacts associated with ground shaking can be reduced if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices, thus reducing impacts due to potential seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Liquefaction factors include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied soil layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. As shown by the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2020). Four soil borings were conducted on the project site. Based on the evaluations of the borings, three of the four borings showed no substantial potential for liquefaction

54 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils

(G&A 2020). However, one boring showed potential for liquefaction. The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project states that current fill deposits are unsuitable for new structures, and must be removed and recompacted in building and hardscape areas (G&A 2020). Therefore, potential impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant.

GEO-1 Soil Removals and Fill Soils To minimize potential impacts from soil removals and fill soils, the following measures shall be incorporated into project construction: . Removal of existing non engineered fill soils, the upper topsoil, and alluvial soils shall be necessary in all building areas, hardscape areas, and areas to receive engineered fill. Artificial fill and the upper two feet of alluvial soils, as present, shall be removed in building areas and areas to receive fill. Additionally, for buildings located in natural, cut, or areas of shallow fill, removals shall be made to a minimum depth of five feet below the existing grade or proposed pad grade, or three feet below the bottom of proposed foundations, whichever is deeper. If required, temporary support for excavations and special handling/precautions for grading adjacent existing structures and utilities shall be utilized. For flatwork, hardscape, and areas to receive fill, all artificial fill and unsuitable material should be removed and recompacted. In addition, soil shall be removed to a minimum depth of two feet below existing grade or proposed subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. After the abovementioned soil removals are completed, exposed soils shall be observed by a registered geotechnical engineer to evaluate if additional removals are necessary. Fill soils shall not be placed until completion of the geotechnical observation. . Bedrock cut areas shall be overexcavated (undercut) and capped with engineered compacted fill. In building pad areas, the bedrock cut areas shall be undercut a minimum of five feet below proposed pad grade or one-third of the maximum fill thickness, whichever is deeper. The undercut shall be performed within the building area and 10 feet beyond. The excavated rock may be reused as fill providing it is mixed and blended and does not contain rocks more than eight inches in diameter. . For transition pads that incorporate both cut and fill materials, the cut portions within building areas and 10 feet beyond the building perimeters shall be undercut and capped with certified compacted fill. The undercut shall be a minimum of five feet below proposed pad grade or one- third of the maximum fill thickness, whichever is deeper. Undercutting of the bedrock in the subterranean parking area shall not be necessary if the excavation exposes a uniform bearing material. . Once the soil removals and undercutting have been completed, the bottoms of the removal and undercut areas shall be observed by a registered geotechnical engineer. Deeper removals may be required if uncertified fill or loose or soft zones are encountered. Prior to placing fill, the exposed surfaces shall be processed by scarifying to a depth of six to eight inches, conditioning to near optimum moisture content and compacting to at least 90 percent relative compaction. . Fill shall be free of trash, debris, and substantial vegetation, placed in thin lifts, moisture- conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Material exceeding 12 inches in diameter shall be excluded from

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

the fill. If highly expansive soil is encountered, such materials shall be placed at the bottom of removal areas or outside of building areas. Depending on the conditions encountered at the time of grading, soils at the bottom of recommended removal areas may have moisture contents well above the optimum value. For such soils to be used after removal or undercutting, some treatment of the wet soil shall be necessary, such as air drying, soil mixing, or other remedial measures. . Fill soils shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Relative compaction is the ratio of the in-place dry soil density to the maximum dry soil density as determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D 1557. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? As shown in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within a landslide area (DOC 2020b). The topography at the project site and its vicinity is relatively level. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Given the site characteristics, risk exposure to occupants and employees would not increase as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to landslides. NO IMPACT b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? A significant impact would occur if construction activities or proposed uses would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction of the project would result in ground surface disturbance during site clearance and grading, which could create the potential for soil erosion via wind and stormwater. Wind erosion would be minimized through compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55, which requires best management practices (BMPs) such as watering disturbed soils to prevent wind- blown dust. The project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for soil erosion is low but peak stormwater runoff could result in short-term sheet erosion in areas of exposed soils. The potential for soil erosion from stormwater would be minimized through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. NPDES requires the development of a SWPPP, which includes BMPs to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff (also refer to the discussion in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality). In addition, the project would be required to comply with grading requirements established in Title 7, Chapter 3 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, which includes erosion control and drainage requirements for construction projects involving grading and excavations (including, but not limited to, incorporating inlet structures, downdrains, subdrains, and cleanouts). Compliance with standard conditions and BMPs required through the City’s building review process (incorporation of NPDES permitting and VCAPCD regulations) would minimize the potential for substantial soil erosion. Impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

56 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Subsidence occurs when a large portion of the land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. The project site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence and there is no extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy proposed. Therefore, the potential for soil instability due to subsidence is low. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone, nor a landslide zone (DOC 2020b). Therefore, the potential for slope stability hazards to adversely affect the proposed development is considered low, although there is a potential for liquefaction at the project site, as discussed in Checklist Item 7.a.3. Lateral spreading on the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place towards a free face (i.e., retaining wall, slope or channel) and to less extent on ground surfaces with a very gently slope. Due to the flat nature of the site, the likelihood of lateral spread occurring is considered low (G&A 2020). Although topography of the project site is relatively level and the site has been previously graded, the Geotechnical Evaluation for the project states that the current fill deposits and upper Alluvial deposits within the project site are unsuitable to support the proposed development of new structures. Potential impacts associated with removal and recompaction of these unsuitable materials would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils contain high amounts of clay particles that swell when wet and shrink when dry. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. On-site soils may also possess high expansion potential based on the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Thousand Oaks 2014). The Geotechnical Evaluation of the project conveys the results of laboratory testing, which showed that on-site soils have a high expansion index and makes recommendations accordingly (G&A 2020). Potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The City of Thousand Oaks currently serves the wastewater needs of project site and would serve the project. Wastewater would continue to be conveyed to the Hill Canyon Treatment Plant for treatment. No septic tanks or alternative on-site wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the project. Further, the City Public Works Department would review project plans to assure they provide appropriate sewer infrastructure/hook-ups for the project. Therefore, no impact regarding this issue would occur. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The paleontological sensitivities of the geologic units underlying the project site were evaluated to determine if the proposed project could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of an online paleontological locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within geologic units mapped within the project site. Fossil collections records from the Paleobiology Database and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database were reviewed for known fossil localities in Ventura County (Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). In addition, a request for a list of known fossil localities from the project site and immediate vicinity (i.e., localities recorded on the United States Geological Survey Newbury Park, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle) was submitted to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). Based on the NHMLAC records search and available information contained within existing scientific literature and the UCMP database, paleontological sensitivities were assigned to the geologic units underlying the project site. The potential for impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has developed a system for assessing paleontological sensitivity and describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (SVP 2010). This system is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. As depicted in Figure 12, the surface geology of the project site is entirely mapped as Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) alluvium (Qa), consisting of gray to grayish brown sandy and silty clay with gravel (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1990; G&A 2020). Late to middle Holocene alluvial sediments within the project site (e.g., Qa) are typically too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources and have a low paleontological sensitivity at the surface, according to SVP guidelines (SVP 2010). However, exposures of older deposits/formations near the project site and the stratigraphic setting in the vicinity are indicative that Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium (Qoa) and Miocene Conejo Volcanics (Tcvb) units underlie the late to middle Holocene unit mapped at the surface, at shallow to moderate depths (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1990). Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium (Qoa) is mapped at the surface less than one mile south of the project site (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1990; G&A 2020). Miocene Conejo Volcanics (Tcvb) is mapped immediately southeast of the project site (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1990; G&A 2020). Based on the findings of the project-specific geotechnical evaluation, the transition between younger (Qa) and older (Qoa) alluvial deposits within the project site was documented at depths ranging from 3 to 13 feet below ground surface. Miocene Conejo Volcanics were also encountered during subsurface explorations at depths ranging from 13 to 30 feet below ground surface (G&A 2021). Based on the paleontological locality searches, literature review, and geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project, the mapped geologic unit in the project site (i.e., Qa) was determined to have paleontological sensitivities ranging from low to high, increasing with depth (G&A 2020; Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021; SVP 2010). A search of the paleontological locality records resulted in no previously recorded fossil localities within the project site; however, at least four Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) vertebrate localities (LACM VP 1680, 7660, 3213, 1142) were reported within 10 miles of the project site, including horse (Equidae), mammoth (Mammuthus), mastodon (Mammut americanum), and several other terrestrial vertebrates (Bell

58 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils

Figure 12 Surface Geology of the Project Site

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

2021). The mammoth was discovered at a depth of 14 to 15 feet below surface, less than five miles northwest of the project site. A supplemental review of the museum records yielded records of seven additional vertebrate fossil localities from Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) sedimentary deposits in Ventura County, which produced specimens of mammoth (Mammuthus), proboscidean (Proboscidea), seaduck (Chendytes), horse (Equus), and bison (Bison). Because numerous significant vertebrate fossils have been recovered from the Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvial deposits (e.g., Qoa) in Ventura County and throughout California, it is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity (Bell 2021; Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). The alluvial deposits within the project site is determined to be low at the surface, but increase in sensitivity at depth, and are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity at depths of three feet below ground surface. Miocene Conejo Volcanics (Tcvb), which underlie older alluvial deposits (i.e., Qoa) within the project site at moderate depths, is considered to have no paleontological sensitivity as their formation is not conducive to the preservation of paleontological resources. The project site is in an urbanized area and has been previously developed. However, excavations associated with the proposed subterranean components would likely extend below the boundary between younger alluvial sediments (or artificial fill) and native (i.e., previously undisturbed) alluvial deposits of early Holocene to Pleistocene age (i.e., Qoa). If native/intact sediments or geologic units with a high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Qoa shown in Figure 12) at the shallow subsurface are disturbed, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur. Construction activities may result in the destruction, damage, or loss of undiscovered paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 during project construction would reduce potential impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level by providing for the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure

GEO-2 Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program Prior to the commencement of project construction, a qualified paleontological monitor (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the SVP [2010] standards as a Paleontological Resource Monitor) shall be retained to conduct paleontological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching) of native (i.e., previously undisturbed) Quaternary old alluvium (Qoa). Monitoring shall be supervised by a qualified paleontologist (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the SVP [2010] standards as a Qualified Professional Paleontologist). Full-time monitoring shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities associated with excavations for the proposed subterranean components, as well as any ground disturbance exceeding depths of three feet below ground surface. These project activities have a high potential of disturbing native (previously undisturbed) paleontologically-sensitive deposits (i.e., Quaternary old alluvium [Qoa]). If Quaternary old alluvium (Qoa) is not observed at the full depth of excavations associated with the proposed subterranean components or if deposits of Miocene Conejo Volcanics are encountered, monitoring can be discontinued. Ground-disturbing activities that impact previously disturbed sediments (i.e., artificial fill) only and ground disturbance within geologic units with no paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Miocene Conejo Volcanics) shall not require paleontological monitoring.

60 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils

The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines full-time or part-time monitoring is no longer warranted based on observed geology, they may recommend reducing monitoring to periodic spot-checking or may recommend that monitoring cease entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances of previously undisturbed areas are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the qualified paleontologist at that time. If a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be prepared to a curation-ready condition and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the NHMLAC or UCMP). Curation fees are the responsibility of the project owner. A final report shall be prepared describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to City. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

62 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact

Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ ■ □

Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHG emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions. GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than CO2on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2014).6 Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (USEPA 2020). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to

6 The IPCC’s (2014b) Fiſth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018).

Regulatory Framework

California Regulations The State of California considers GHG emissions and the impacts of climate change to be a serious threat to the public health, environment, economic well-being, and natural resources of California, and has taken an aggressive stance to mitigate its impact on climate change through the adoption of policies and legislation. CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in the state. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions; some of the major initiatives are summarized below.

CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 (ASSEMBLY BILL 32 AND SENATE BILL 32) The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 MMT of CO2e, which was achieved in 2016. CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since the Scoping Plan’s approval. The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014. The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the state (CARB 2017).

64 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

SENATE BILL 375 SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

SENATE BILL 100 Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Regional Regulations

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG coordinates with various air quality and transportation stakeholders in southern California to ensure compliance with the federal and state air quality requirements, including the Transportation Conformity Rule and other applicable federal, State, and air district laws and regulations. As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the six-county southern California region, SCAG is required by law to ensure that transportation activities conform to, and are supportive of, the goals of regional and State air quality plans to attain the NAAQS. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes ten goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020).

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Local Regulations

THOUSAND OAKS CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN The City of Thousand Oaks is currently developing a Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) that focuses on components such as a Citywide Greenhouse Gas Inventory, a Municipal GHG Inventory, a Citywide Energy Action Plan, the Hill Canyon Masterplan, a EV Charging and Infrastructure Plan, the California Data Collaborative, and a solid waste contract extension with revised solid waste diversion requirement including organic recycling. The City has not yet formally adopted a climate action plan (CAP) or other GHG reduction plan that addresses community-wide emissions to date.

THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN The General Plan Conservation Element includes the following policy related to GHG emissions reduction: Policy CO-39. Support efforts to reduce GHG emissions, consistent with the intent of the State of California’s California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Implementation Measures . Prepare GHG Analyses for development projects that require the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports or Mitigated Negative Declarations. . Reduce energy use and utilize sustainable energy sources at City facilities where feasible, in accordance with City-adopted EAP.

Significance Thresholds Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (AEP 2016). While the City has taken steps toward development of a CAP, the City has not formally adopted a CAP or other GHG reduction plan that addresses community-wide emissions to date. Thus, this approach is not currently feasible for this analysis. To evaluate whether a project may generate a quantity of GHG emissions with the potential to have a significant impact on the environment, local air districts have developed a number of bright-line significance thresholds. Bright-line significance thresholds are numeric mass emissions thresholds that identify the level at which additional analysis of project GHG emissions is necessary. If project emissions are equal to or below the bright-line threshold, with or without mitigation, the project’s

66 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions would be less than significant. The VCAPCD has not established quantitative significance thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions in CEQA analyses, but it recommends using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act white paper and other resources when developing GHG evaluations (VCAPCD 2006). The CEQA and Climate Change paper provides a common platform of information and tools to support local governments and was prepared as a resource, not as a guidance document. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) expressly provides a “lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project,” whether to “[q]uantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project” and/or “[r]ely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) further states that a lead agency should “focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change” and that the analysis should “reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” This analysis utilizes two thresholds to evaluate the significance of the project’s GHG emissions: the SCAQMD-recommended bright-line threshold and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. In light of the absence of a specific GHG threshold or qualified GHG reduction plan recommended or adopted by the City or VCAPCD, it is appropriate to refer to guidance from other agencies when discussing GHG emissions. The City of Thousand Oaks generally refers to the SCAQMD methodology for GHG emissions analysis. In guidance provided by the SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group in September 2010, SCAQMD considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in meeting minutes dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010): . Tier 1. If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. . Tier 2. Consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate. . Tier 3. Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 10,000 MT of CO2e per year for industrial projects and 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for residential and commercial projects. . Tier 4. Establishes a service population threshold to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 4.8 MT of CO2e per year for land use projects.

The project would not be statutory or categorically exempt, and therefore Tier 1 does not apply. As previously stated, the City does not have a local, qualified GHG reduction plan for the project to tier off, and Tier 2 would not apply. The City has recently used the SCAQMD Tier 3 bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year threshold to analyze project GHG emissions under its jurisdiction. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, this threshold is considered appropriate by the City to determine GHG emission impacts for the project. The project would include residential and hotel uses; therefore, the applicable threshold for the project would be a bright line-threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for residential and commercial projects in accordance with Tier 3.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

In addition, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.” Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is evaluated qualitatively. A project is considered consistent with the provisions of these documents if it meets the general intent in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of local- and state-adopted goals and does not impede attainment of those goals

Methodology GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2, with the assumptions described under Section 3, Air Quality, in addition to the following: . Amortization of Construction Emissions. In accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008). . Utility Energy Intensity Factors. The project would be served by SCE. Therefore, SCE’s specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2e per megawatt-hour) are used in the calculations of GHG emissions. However, per SB 100, the statewide RPS Program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. To account for the continuing effects of the RPS, the energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod were reduced for year 2030 based on the percentage of renewables reported by SCE. SCE energy intensity factors that include this reduction are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 SCE Energy Intensity Factors 2023 2030 (lbs/MWh) (lbs/MWh)2 Percent procurement 40.5%1 60%

CO2 777.23 353.87

CH4 0.018 0.015

N2O 0.004 0.003 1 Source: SCE 2012 2 RPS goal established by SB 100

lbs = pounds; MWh = megawatt-hour; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standards; SB = Senate Bill

68 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

. Photovoltaic Solar System. Although Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requires all new residential uses under three stories must install PV solar panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected electricity usage, the project’s site plans do not include on-site PV solar panels. Therefore, it was not assumed that the project’s electricity usage would be supplied by any PV solar panels. . Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Mobile Sources. Because CalEEMod does not calculate nitrous oxide emissions from mobile sources, nitrous oxide emissions were quantified using guidance from the CARB and the EMFAC2017 Emissions Inventory for the VCAPCD region for the year 2030 (the next State milestone target year for GHG emission reductions) using the EMFAC2011 categories (CARB 2018b and 2020; see Appendix A for calculations). a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Quantitative Emissions Analysis Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of operation of construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export. As shown in Table 8, construction activities for the project would generate an estimated 1,148 MT of CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project per SCAQMD guidance), construction of the project would generate about 38 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions

Year Project Emissions (MT of CO2e)

2021 313

2022 835

Total 1,148

Total Amortized over 30 Years 38

Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results.

Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. Table 9 summarizes the project’s operational GHG emissions combined with amortized construction emissions. As shown therein, the project would generate approximately 2,786 MT of CO2e per year. These emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MT of CO2e per year threshold.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 9 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2e in metric tons)

Construction 38

Operational

Area 3

Energy 897

Solid Waste 83

Water 108

Mobile

CO2 and CH4 1,634

N2O 23

Total 2,786

Threshold 3,000

Threshold Exceeded? No

Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod, except for N2O mobile emissions. N2O mobile emissions modeling was completed consistent with the description in Methodology. See Appendix A for modeling results.

Plan Consistency Analysis As discussed under Regulatory Setting, several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the Southern California region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s General Plan. The project’s consistency with these plans is discussed below. In summary, the project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions.

2017 Scoping Plan The principal state plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals include reducing fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest iteration of the California Green Building Standards Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, water-efficient faucets and toilets, and water efficient landscaping and irrigation. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with recycling and diversion goals by participating in the City’s solid waste reduction programs. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan.

2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. The

70 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes ten goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 10. As shown therein, the project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 10 Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Reduction Strategy Project Consistency

Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options Consistent. The project is an infill development that would . Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate involve construction of residential uses and a hotel in an multimodal access to work, educational and other urbanized area. The nearest transit stop is located destinations approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site at the . Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce “Newbury Road east of Borchard Road” bus stop for commute times and distances and expand job Route 40. The project would include providing continuous opportunities near transit and along center-focused sidewalks along Kelley Road. The project would also main streets provide numerous short-term and long-term parking stalls . Plan for growth near transit investments and support and lockers for bicycles. Furthermore, the project would implementation of first/last mile strategies z Promote also be within walking and biking distance of existing the redevelopment of underperforming retail residential uses (neighborhood adjacent to site), developments and other outmoded nonresidential commercial uses (plazas adjacent to the site), and uses institutional uses (Stagecoach Inn Museum approximately . Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized 0.5 mile southeast of site). The project would include an land to accommodate new growth, increase on-site network of sidewalks that would connect to amenities and connectivity in existing neighborhoods adjacent land uses and roadways to facilitate pedestrian . Encourage design and transportation options that access. Therefore, the project would focus growth near reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips destinations and mobility options. (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations) . Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking) Promote Diverse Housing Choices Consistent. The project would involve construction of a . Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and residential community with 218 apartment units, of which prevent displacement 26 would be affordable housing. The project would be . Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and served by public transit via the Newbury Road and affordable housing development Borchard Road bus stop for Route 40, approximately . Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for 0.25 mile to the west of the project site. Therefore, the building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to project would promote diverse housing choices that increase housing supply support the reduction of GHGs. . Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports reduction of GHGs

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Leverage Technology Innovations Consistent. The project would be required to install . Promote low emission technologies such as photovoltaic solar panels that generate an amount of neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, electricity equal to expected electricity usage on all car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing residential buildings in accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space Therefore, the project would leverage technology . Improve access to services through technology— innovations. such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit and other multi-modal payments . Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies Consistent. The project would be required to comply with . Pursue funding opportunities to support local the latest iteration of the Building Energy Efficiency sustainable development implementation projects Standards and California Green Building Standards Code. that reduce GHG emissions Therefore, the project would support implementation of . Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to sustainability policies. new construction and that incentivizes development near transit corridors and stations . Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development projects, including parks and open space . Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies . Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region . Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions . Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy

72 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Promote a Green Region Consistent. The project is an infill development that would . Support development of local climate adaptation and involve construction of residential and hotel uses in an hazard mitigation plans, as well as project urbanized area and would therefore not interfere with implementation that improves community resiliency regional wildlife connectivity or convert agricultural land. to climate change and natural hazards The project would be required to install PV solar panels . Support local policies for renewable energy that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected production, reduction of urban heat islands and electricity usage on all residential buildings in accordance carbon sequestration with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy . Integrate local food production into the regional Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the project would support landscape development of a green region. . Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation . Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity . Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural land . Identify ways to improve access to public park space Source: SCAG 2020

Thousand Oaks General Plan State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, including the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Title 24 of the California Building Code, would reduce GHG emissions associated with the project. Therefore, the project would also be consistent with Policy CO-39 of the Thousand Oaks General Plan, which supports GHG reduction efforts consistent with AB 32. Consequently, the project would not conflict with the policies of the Thousand Oaks General Plan aimed at reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

74 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ ■ □ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? □ □ ■ □ c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ ■ □ d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ ■ □ e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■ f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■ g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? □ □ ■ □

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Grading and construction activities would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site preparation and building construction. Standard construction BMPs for the use and handling of such materials would be implemented to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Further, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. The project involves residential and commercial (hotel) development, which would not involve any routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operation of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, as explained above. With adherence to applicable laws, the project would not create a significant hazard or emit hazardous emissions to the public, the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Sequoia Middle School, located approximately one mile west of the site. As discussed in Checklist Items 8.a and 8.b, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and federal laws, and operation of the project would not result in the handling or emissions of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The following databases and listings compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were reviewed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. on February 8, 2021 for known hazardous materials contamination at the site: . United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)  Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)/Envirofacts database search (USEPA 2021) . State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)  GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and other cleanup sites (SWRCB 2021)

76 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials

. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)  EnviroStor database for hazardous waste facilities or known contamination sites (DTSC 2021)  Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites

The project site, previously operated by the Conejo Valley Unified School District’s Maintenance Yard at 310 East Kelley Road, is listed in the GeoTracker database due to the historical presence underground storage tanks (USTs) and removal of contaminated soils on-site. Three USTs and 87 tons of affected soil were removed and disposed off-site in November 1997 and two USTs were removed in June 2009. The listing is closed with a clean-up status of Completed-Case Closed as of February 2010, with a closure/no further action letter dated February 2010. The site was not listed in any of the other above environmental databases and no other database listings were shown within 1,000 feet of the project site. Because there is no evidence of existing contamination or hazardous material facilities/sites on the site or sites in the vicinity that would create a significant safety hazard, this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport. The nearest airport is the Camarillo Airport, approximately nine miles to the west, and the project site is located outside of the Camarillo Airport’s existing and future noise contours lines (Ventura County 2011). Therefore, the project would not expose future residents or workers to safety hazards or excessive noise and there would be no impact. NO IMPACT f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project includes residential and commercial (hotel) development on an infill lot and would not modify or block current emergency access routes or site ingress and egress. Although implementation of the project would increase traffic to and from the project site, the project site is bounded and accessed by Kelley Road to the west and Newbury Road to the north, which have sufficient capacity to accommodate fire trucks and other emergency (see Section 17, Transportation). The two project driveways (Kelley Road and Newbury Road) would be constructed to City of Thousand Oaks design standards and include hammerhead access for emergency response vehicles. The project would require review by the Ventura County Fire Department and the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that ingress and egress are sufficient and that the proposed internal circulation system would not interfere with emergency access. Since the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation route, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The project site is in a developed portion of the City and is not located in an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone [California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE 2020a). The site is however, within one mile of areas to the south/southeast which are mapped as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CalFIRE 2020a). Prior to construction of new developments, applicants must submit projects plans to the Ventura County Fire Department for the approval of the location of fire hydrants. Since the project would be required to adhere to the measures included in the CBC to reduce fire risk, and all project plans would be reviewed by the Ventura County Fire Department, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant wildfire hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

78 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality 10 Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □ b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □ (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □ (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □ (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ ■ □ e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ ■ □

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

The analysis presented in this section is based in part on information contained in the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by The G4 Group (G4), dated June 2020. This Preliminary Drainage Report is included as Appendix F of this IS-MND. a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Construction Project-related grading and construction, including on-site operation of heavy equipment during grading and construction, would require temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of vegetative cover which could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation on-site. The project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for soil erosion is low but peak stormwater runoff could result in short-term sheet erosion in areas of exposed soils. During construction, the project applicant would be required to implement structural and non- structural erosion, sediment, waste, and pollutant control BMPs. In California, the SWRCB administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. Compliance with the Ventura County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (Section 7-3.21 –Erosion Control and Drainage Devices and Section 7-3.01– Development, Stormwater Quality Master And Stormwater Pollution Control Plans) would require the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) or SWPPP. The purpose of these plans is to identify all potential sources of pollution that may be expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharge from a project site and provide BMPs to help reduce potential impacts. The BMPs would include measures that would be implemented to prevent creation and discharge of eroded soils from the construction site and sedimentation of surface waters off-site. The BMPs would also include measures to quickly contain and clean up any minor spills or leaks of fluids from construction equipment. Given the relatively flat topography of the site, lack of on-site surface waters, and implementation of a required stormwater control plan, construction of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the Ventura County MS4 Permit and the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code would reduce water quality and waste discharge impacts from runoff during temporary construction activities and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation The project would be required to be designed to meet the requirements of the Ventura County Municipal Stormwater Permit (CAS004002, Order R4-2010-0108) and the requirements of the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (Technical Guidance Manual). Site-specific BMPs that mitigate stormwater would be designed and built following design requirements in the Ventura County MS4 Permit and the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (Section 7-8.302-Best Management Practices of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code). The Ventura County MS4 permit establishes limits for the concentration of contaminants entering the storm drain system. As discussed in the Preliminary Drainage Report, the project would include a subsurface infiltration facility and flow-based water quality control facilities, consistent with requirements outlined in the Ventura County MS4 Permit. The project would not violate water quality standards during operation and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

80 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The project would cover the majority of the project site with impervious surfaces (approximately 95 percent impervious surfaces), reducing permeable surfaces compared to existing conditions. The easterly half of the existing project site is an undrained sump, and if filled, would crest the sidewalk along Newbury Road and discharge easterly. The proposed drainage pattern would intercept the entire site and discharge into the Newbury Road culvert. The project would comply with BMP requirements and follow guidelines in the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, as discussed above in Checklist Item 10.a. The majority of the runoff would flow into the proposed on-site subsurface infiltration facility and flow-based water quality control facilities. In compliance with NPDES and the County of Ventura’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements, project drainage would follow existing watershed drainage patterns, contribute to infiltration and groundwater recharge, and would not increase peak period surface runoff (G4 2020). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to groundwater supplies or recharge. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project would not alter the course of any stream or river but would alter existing drainage flows on the project site. The easterly half of the existing project site is an undrained sump, and if filled, would crest the sidewalk along Newbury Road and discharge easterly. The proposed drainage pattern would intercept the entire site and discharge into the Newbury Road culvert. An existing City-maintained catch basin located in the easterly curb and gutter of Kelley Road currently collects drainage flowing in the easterly side of Kelley Road and portions of the southerly portion of the project site. The project would cover the majority of the project site with impervious surfaces (approximately 95 percent impervious surfaces), reducing permeable surfaces compared to existing conditions. During operation, the project would be subject to the requirements of the Ventura County MS4 Permit. The NPDES program requires stormwater permits for point source discharges, and the County’s Permit establishes limits for the concentrations of contaminants entering the storm drain system and prevents all non-stormwater discharges from entering the storm drain system. LID BMPs would be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department to ensure that water is

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments contained and slowed to infiltrate the groundwater as feasible, which would reduce pollutants entering the water stream and ensure the volume of runoff leaving the site is not increased. As discussed in the Project Description and the Preliminary Drainage Report, an on-site detention facility would be installed to ensure that post construction site runoff would not exceed the developed 10-year frequency storm flow, consistent with City of Thousand Oaks requirements (G4 2020). With incorporation of Ventura County MS4 Permit requirements during construction and operation, the project site would not discharge polluted stormwater in excess of City and County requirements. Therefore, impacts to water quality and the project site’s drainage pattern would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The project site is approximately 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The site is not designated as a Tsunami Inundation Area according to the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Inundation Maps (DOC 2009) and is therefore not at risk of being impacted by a tsunami. Additionally, the project site is not near any large bodies of water subject to seiches. The FEMA Flood Map Service Center provides the site-specific Flood Hazard Map relevant to the project site (Map No. 06111C0966E, effective date January 20, 2010; FEMA 2010). This map shows the site is not in the 100-year flood hazard area. Rather, it is in Zone X (unshaded; this zone includes areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain and is outside the 100- year flood zone). Construction and operation of the project would alter the current drainage pattern of the site. The easterly half of the existing project site is an undrained sump, and if filled, would crest the sidewalk along Newbury Road and discharge easterly. The proposed drainage pattern would intercept the entire site and discharge into the Newbury Road culvert. However, as discussed in Responses 10.c(i)-(iii), implementation of the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding or otherwise increase flood risks. The project site is in an urbanized area with existing stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of standard BMPs, the project would not release pollutants due to project inundation in a flood zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The project site is located in the Calleguas Creek Watershed and the Conejo Groundwater Basin. This watershed is used for domestic and municipal uses by the City of Thousand Oaks Water Department, Calleguas Municipal District, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. As discussed under Checklist Item 10.a, compliance with existing regulations would ensure the project would not degrade surface or groundwater quality. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

82 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality

While the project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, it would also include stormwater infiltration design measures to capture stormwater, allowing for groundwater recharge through the project site. As such, the project would not interfere with or preclude groundwater recharge. Accordingly, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

84 Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning 11 Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ ■ b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project includes residential and commercial (hotel) development on a previously developed site in an urbanized area of the City. The project would not divide the community as the project site is an infill site bounded by roadways to the north and west and residential and commercial developments to the south and east. Additionally, the internal driveways would provide internal access to the site. Although the project would involve changes to the layout of uses on the project site, the project would not include components that would divide or disrupt the arrangement of the established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project would include construction and operation of 218 two- and three-story residential apartments and a 120-room, three-story hotel. The project would also include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the two existing on-site buildings. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial and the project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the project site as Commercial/Residential. The project site is currently zoned Highway and Arterial Business (C-2), which is intended for establishments offering accommodations, supplies, or services (Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 9-4.1300) and the project applicant is requesting a zone change from Highway and Arterial Business to Specific Plan (SP). With implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations from the City’s General Plan and Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

86 Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources 12 Mineral Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site and surrounding properties are located in an urbanized area of the City. According to the DOC Mineral Land Classification Maps, the project site is located in an area with a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 designation, indicating that the area contains no significant aggregate deposits (DOC 1993). There are no known mineral resources on the project site or its vicinity. Additionally, the surrounding commercial and residential land uses are not compatible with mineral extraction. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on the availability or recovery of mineral resources. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

88 Environmental Checklist Noise 13 Noise Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □ b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ ■ □ □ c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■

Noise

The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). However, the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, a method called “A weighting” is used to adjust actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz, thus filtering out noise frequencies that are not audible to the human ear. A weighting approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the “A-weighted” levels of those sounds. Therefore, the A-weighted noise scale is used for measurements and standards involving the human perception of noise. In this analysis, all noise levels are A-weighted, and “dBA” is understood to identify the A-weighted decibel. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; similarly, dividing the energy in half would result in a decrease of 3 dB (Crocker 2007). Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase (or

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments decrease) of up to 3 dBA in noise levels (i.e., twice [or half] the sound energy); that an increase (or decrease) of 5 dBA (8 times [or one eighth] the sound energy) is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA (10.5 times [or approximately one tenth] the sound energy) sounds twice (or half) as loud (Crocker 2007).

Descriptors The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed. The noise descriptors used for this analysis are the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq) and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL).

. The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007). . The CNEL is a 24-hour equivalent sound level with an additional 5 dBA penalty to noise occurring during evening hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and an additional 10 dBA penalty to noise occurring during the night, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during these hours (Caltrans 2013). Quiet suburban areas typically have a CNEL in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 70+ CNEL range.

Propagation Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases. The way sound reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of source (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Sound levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Sound from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013).

Vibration Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel- wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The vibration frequency of an object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body is from a low of less than 1 Hz up to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007). While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as

90 Environmental Checklist Noise groundborne noise. Groundborne noise may result in adverse effects, such as building damage, when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz). Vibration may also damage infrastructure when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Descriptors Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

Response to Vibration Vibration associated with construction of the project has the potential to be an annoyance to nearby land uses. Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources. The Caltrans vibration limits are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts on structures. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020b) identifies impact criteria for buildings and criteria for human annoyances from transient and continuous/frequent sources; Table 11 presents the impact criteria for buildings, and Table 12 presents the criteria for humans. From these documents, the applicable thresholds for the vibration analysis are 0.5 PPV inches per second at residential structures and the human “distinctly perceptible” threshold of 0.24 PPV inches per second.

Table 11 Vibration Damage Potential Building Type Maximum PPV (in./sec.) Historic sites and other critical locations 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 Older residential structures 0.5 New residential structures 1.0 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 12 Vibration Annoyance Potential Maximum PPV (in./sec.) Human Response Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Severe/Disturbing 2.00 0.70 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Distinctly perceptible 0.240 0.035 Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012 Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020

Propagation Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Variability in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020b). When a building is exposed to vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss (the loss that occurs when energy is transferred from one medium to another) will usually reduce the overall vibration level. However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Project Noise Setting The predominant noise source on and around the project site is vehicular traffic on Newbury Road, Kelley Road, and U.S. 101. Ambient noise levels are generally highest during the daytime and rush hour unless congestion substantially slows speeds. Three 15-minute noise level measurements were collected by Rincon on February 5, 2021 between 11:19 a.m. and 12:37 p.m. using an Extech (Model 407780A) ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meter. Short Term Noise Measurement (ST) 1 was taken along the western boundary of the site along Kelley Road; ST 2 was taken at the northeastern corner of the site along Newbury Road; and ST 3 was taken southeast of the project site to determine ambient noise levels near the residences adjacent to the project boundary. Because of restrictions associated with COVID-19, which were in effect at the time on-site measurements were taken and are still ongoing, there is a decreased use of area roadways and on-site noise measurements may not be fully representative of typical noise conditions by underestimating traffic noise levels. Nonetheless, on-site measurements were conducted for informational purposes. Table 13 summarizes the noise measurement results and Figure 13 shows the noise measurement locations. Measured noise levels are provided in Leq for the measurement period; Lmin and Lmax are also provided. Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix G.

92 Environmental Checklist Noise

Figure 13 Sound Level Measurement Locations

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 13 Project Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results

Approximate Distance Leq Lmin Lmax # Measurement Location Sample Times to Primary Noise Source (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) ST1 West of project site 11:19: a.m. – 25 feet to centerline of Kelley Road; U.S 66.1 57.1 86.1 along Kelley Road 11:34 p.m. 101 traffic noise and parking lot activity from adjacent retail space audible ST2 Northeast of project 11:52 a.m. – 95 feet to centerline of Newbury Road; 67.0 61.5 77.5 site, near Newbury Road 12:07 p.m. U.S. 101 traffic noise and adjacent retail and parking lot audible ST3 Southeast of project site 12:22 p.m. – 575 feet to centerline of Newbury road; 61.0 57.2 67.6 near adjacent 12:37 p.m. U.S. 101 traffic noise and adjacent parking residences lot activity audible See Appendix G for noise monitoring data. Source: Rincon field visit on February 5, 2021.

Regulatory Setting

Municipal Code Chapter 21 of the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code has issued standards in regard to noise from radios, television sets and similar devices; powered equipment in residential areas; loud, unnecessary, and unusual noise; noise from emergency activities; and, noise from loud parties or assemblages. However, the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code does not have quantitative standards for construction or stationary noise sources. Chapter 8-11 of the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code limits the construction of any building or structure, the moving of earth, or the laying of any pavement, including, but not limited to, the making of any excavation, clearing or grading of surface land, and loading or unloading material, equipment, or supplies to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Although the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code does not have quantitative standards for construction, for purposes of this analysis, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) criteria is used. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period.

General Plan Noise Element Chapter 4.6 of the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Noise Element develops more specific thresholds of significance where the ambient noise is at or above certain levels. Table 14 identifies noise impacts associated with project related noise level increases.

94 Environmental Checklist Noise

Table 14 City of Thousand Oaks Stationary Noise Standards If the annual average noise level with A significant project or cumulative impact The project alone may be the proposed project, cumulative may result if the change in annual considered to make a projects, and General Plan buildout in average noise levels from existing substantial contribution to an area currently used for or conditions due to all sources in an area significant cumulative impact designated in the General Plan for a currently used for or designated in the if the change in annual noise-sensitive land use1 is expected to General Plan for a noise-sensitive land average noise level due to the be: use1 is: project is: Less than 55 dBA CNEL Not significant for any change in noise Not significant for any change level in noise level 55 – 60 dBA CNEL Equal to or greater than 3.0 dBA Equal to or greater than 1.0 dBA 60 – 70 dBA CNEL Equal to or greater than 1.5 dBA Equal to or greater than 0.5 dBA Greater than 70 dBA CNEL Equal to or greater than 1.0 dBA Equal to or greater than 0.5 dBA 1 A noise-sensitive land use is a use for which the lower limit of the noise level considered “normally unacceptable” for development because of noise impact is 70 dBA CNEL or lower. In identifying land use areas, areas which are undevelopable for noise-sensitive uses because of slope, development restriction, easement, etc., or which are used for non-noise-sensitive components of a multiple-use or mixed-use project, should not be considered noise sensitive. Source: City of Thousand Oaks 2000

Chapter 4.9 of the Noise Element limits construction to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sunday. In addition, no congregation of trucks or construction-related vehicles or construction workers is allowed before 7:00 a.m. at the project site or in the nearby residential areas.

Vibration The City of Thousand Oaks does not have defined thresholds for vibration. Therefore, vibration impacts are analyzed using the thresholds from Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual and the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2020b; FTA 2018).

Sensitive Receivers Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise and groundborne vibration levels than others. For example, residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes are generally more sensitive to noise than are people at commercial and industrial establishments (City of Thousand Oaks 2000). Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers, include residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes. Vibration-sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment that is affected by vibration levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (e.g., recording studies or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). The sensitive receivers nearest to the site consist of historical landmark buildings on-site, single- family residences immediately to the south of the project site, and multi-family housing approximately 425 feet to the north of the project site across U.S 101.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Project construction would require the use of heavy equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving activities. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment could be as close as 15 feet from adjacent properties (e.g., the residential use to the south) but would typically be located at a distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the lot size of the project. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a conservative, 8-hour construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receiver. Construction noise would vary depending on the mix of equipment and the location of the activity on the project site. Typical heavy construction equipment would include bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks, front-end loaders, graders, and stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Noise levels are based on a dozer and front end loader operating simultaneously, which would occur under the most intensive construction phase, grading. Using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) to estimate noise associated with construction equipment, maximum hourly noise levels are calculated to be about 74 dBA Leq at 100 feet, as measured from the average distance of construction activities on a typical day. RCNM calculations are included in Appendix G. This would be below the FTA residential daytime threshold of 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period. In addition, construction of the project would comply with the Municipal Code allowed construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and not during any public holidays (i.e., New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day). Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operation The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be HVAC units. Specific planning data for the future HVAC systems are not available at this stage of project design; however, this analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for commercial or multi-family residential sites, which has a sound power level of 85 dBA. The unit used in this analysis is a 16.7-ton Carrier 38AUD25 split system condenser (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications). The project was assumed to contain six HVAC units based upon one ton of HVAC per 600 sf of building space, as shown in Table 15. Based on the size of the project, it is assumed that 30 rooftop-mounted HVAC units distributed across the project site would be needed, producing a combined noise level at off- site receivers that is equivalent to all units being located at the center of the project site, which is measured at approximately 360 feet from the nearest off-site sensitive receivers south of the project boundary. Refer to Appendix G for the manufacturer’s noise data and HVAC noise calculations.

96 Environmental Checklist Noise

Table 15 Modeled HVAC

Building Estimated Estimated Sound Power Use/Description Square Footage Model HVAC Tons HVAC Units Level per Unit

Multi-Family 297,885 38AUD25 501 30 85 Housing/ Hotel Use

See Appendix G for sample HVAC specification sheets.

New buildings on the project site would have rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment that generates noise. As shown in Table 15, it is assumed that the project would require 30 HVAC units. The combined operation of 30 HVAC units would generate an estimated noise level of 51 dBA Leq at the nearest off-site sensitive receivers south of the project site boundary (Appendix G). The lowest recorded ambient noise level on-site was 61 dBA Leq. The addition of a 51 dBA Leq noise source to that noise level would only increase noise levels by 0.4 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s stationary noise standard increase of 1.0 dBA for uses currently exposed to noise levels between 60 to 70 dBA CNEL. Other noise sources associated with operation of the project would consist of vehicular noise on internal roadways and parking lots, landscaping maintenance, general conversations, pool and spa activities, park activities, and trash hauling activity. As shown in Figure 4, new parking spaces would be distributed through the project site next to internal roadways. Parking lot activities can generate instantaneous or short-term noise from car doors slamming, beeps, alarms, tire movements, engines, radios, and infrequent use of sweepers. However, parking lot noise would be consistent with adjacent commercial land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Parking lot noise also would not typically have a substantial contribution to hourly equivalent noise levels from transportation sources near the project site, relative to measured noise levels reaching 66 dBA Leq along Kelley Road and 67 dBA Leq along Newbury Road. Additional on-site noise sources such as landscape maintenance, low-speed traffic on internal roadways, conversations, pool and spa activities, park activities, and trash hauling also would be typical of noise generated by neighboring land uses and would not substantially contribute to overall ambient noise levels. Therefore, on-site operations would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receivers.

Off-site Traffic Noise Noise levels affecting the nearby off-site properties would be primarily influenced by traffic noise from Kelley Road and Newbury Road. Trip generation for the project and existing traffic counts was estimated based on rates from Stantec’s Daylight Project Traffic and Circulation Study (Stantec 2020; Appendix H). Based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Stantec calculated that the project would generate a total of 2,599 daily vehicle trips, with 156 trips occurring during a.m. peak hour, and 194 total trips occurring during p.m. hour. Existing peak hour volumes along the adjacent street segments from the project site combined with project peak hour volumes representative of their distribution (as determined in the study) are shown in Table 16.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Table 16 Existing and Proposed Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Existing Existing +Project +Project Existing Project Peak Existing Project Peak Peak Added Hour Peak Added Hour Hour Traffic Traffic Hour Traffic Traffic Volume Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Street Segment (a.m.) (a.m.) (a.m.) (p.m.) (p.m.) (p.m.) Newbury Road: Borchard to Ventu Park Road 900 125 1,025 1,934 161 2,095 Kelley Road: Newbury to Lynn Road 379 44 423 353 47 400

Source: Stantec Daylight Apartment Project Traffic and Circulation Study (2020)

The posted speed limit on Newbury Road is 40 miles per hour, while the speed limit for Kelley Road is 30 miles per hour. The observed mix from the site measurements on Newbury Road was observed at 99 percent automobiles, 1 percent medium trucks, and no heavy trucks, while the observed mix on Kelley Road was 98 percent automobiles, 1 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent heavy trucks. However, for a conservative approach to the vehicle classification mix for modeling, heavy trucks were assumed to reach at least 1 percent of the vehicle classification mix for Newbury Road, resulting in 98 percent automobiles, 1 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent heavy trucks. The project would result in traffic increases on Newbury Road from Borchard Road to Ventu Park Road, and Kelley Road from Newbury Road to Lynn Road of 14 percent and 12 percent for a.m. peak hour volumes, and 8 percent and 13 percent for p.m. peak hour volumes, respectively. This would result in approximate noise level increases of 0.6 dBA and 0.5 dBA for a.m. peak hour volumes, and 0.3 dBA and 0.5 dBA for p.m. peak hour volumes, respectively. Therefore, the project’s traffic noise increase would not exceed the barely perceptible noise level of 3 dBA or more, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be required for project construction. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from a dozer, which would be used during site preparation and grading activities and may be used within 22 feet of the on-site historical landmark buildings. A dozer would create approximately 0.089 PPV inches per second at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This would equal a vibration level of 0.1 PPV inches per second at a distance of 22 feet.7 This would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans of 0.24 PPV inches per second. However, vibration level would exceed historic locations and other critical area structural damage impact to landmarked buildings of 0.1 PPV inches per second. Therefore, a dozer may be perceptible to nearby human receptors and temporary noise impacts associated with the dozer (and other potential equipment) would require implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 to reduce impacts to the on-site landmarked buildings to a less than significant level.

7 PPVEquipment = PPVRef (25/D)n (in/sec), PPVRef = reference PPV at 25 feet, D = distance, and n = 1.1

98 Environmental Checklist Noise

Because the project is a residential and hotel use, it would not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

N-1 Use of Large Construction Equipment Near Historic Buildings The following measure shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to on-site historic landmarked buildings: . Dozers and construction equipment with similar vibration levels shall not operate within 22 feet of the on-site historic landmarked buildings.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport is the Camarillo Airport, which is approximately nine miles west of the project site. The project site is not within identified noise contours of the airport (Ventura County 2011). Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to exposure of future residents to aircraft noise. NO IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

100 Environmental Checklist Population and Housing 14 Population and Housing Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □ b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? According to California Department of Finance (CDOF), Thousand Oaks had an estimated population of 126,484 in January 2020, with an average of 2.69 persons per household (CDOF 2020). The proposed project would involve the construction of 218 residential units varying in size from micro to two-bedroom, as well as an approximately 120-room hotel. This analysis conservatively estimates that all employees would relocate from outside Thousand Oaks. Therefore, the project could lead to a population increase in the City of approximately 1,002 persons (218 apartments x 2.69 persons per household + 415 hotel employees = 1,001.4), or 0.4 percent of the City’s January 2020 population (CDOF 2020). The 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS includes growth projections for cities and counties within the SCAG region, including Thousand Oaks. According to the SCAG projections, Thousand Oaks is anticipated to have a population of 144,700 in 2045, an increase of 14.4 percent from the January 2020 population estimate (SCAG 2020). The estimated population generated by the project would constitute 5.5 percent of the anticipated growth within the City by the year 2045 and would not exceed SCAG forecasts. Furthermore, the project would be located in an urbanized area and would not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas that could induce unplanned population growth. The project’s contribution to population growth falls within the SCAG regional forecast and would not otherwise induce unplanned growth. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There are no existing housing units located on the project site. Construction and operation of the proposed project includes residential uses and would not displace existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT

102 Environmental Checklist Public Services 15 Public Services Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □ 2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □ 3 Schools? □ □ ■ □ 4 Parks? □ □ ■ □ 5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □ a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Fire prevention and suppression services are provided by the Ventura County Fire Department. The Ventura County Fire Department currently operates 33 fire stations throughout Ventura County. Eight stations serve the Conejo Valley (Battalion 3). The Valley is well served by fire stations, with virtually all developed areas within two miles of a station. The Fire Protection District has instituted a number of programs to minimize the potential for hazards including fire safety and fire prevention training, site inspections, and urban/wildland interface hazard mitigation programs. The District has a goal of responding to emergencies within five minutes. The five-minute response time includes one minute to dress into protective gear and four minutes to drive to the incident. This is consistent with the National Fire Protection Association’s response time standard of four minutes (2010 edition of NFPA 1710) for the initial arriving company. Although unlikely, the potential for fire to occur at the construction site is possible. The project applicant would be required to comply with California Fire Code (CFC) and City standards related to water availability and accessibility to firefighting equipment. As a condition of approval, the Community Development Department requires design of all buildings in accordance with the

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments currently adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Green Building Code, California Electric Code, California Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, and all other appropriate sections of the City Ordinance Code. Accordingly, it is expected that the electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems for the development would be properly installed during framing operations, thus reducing the potential for fire during the operational phase of the project. Furthermore, the structure must be maintained in accordance with the CFC and CA Title 19. The project must meet all applicable requirements of State and local codes related to building safety, fire flow capacity, fire protection and hazardous materials in effect at time of permit application. Fire flow test data and water system plans must be provided at the time of building plan check. The plans must include all equipment, components, and layout of the system. Adherence to CFC and City requirements during construction would reduce the potential for fire hazards. The Ventura County Fire Department provides services aimed at fire prevention and compliance with California Building Standards Code, Chapters 7 and 7A, and the California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9). The Fire Department also provides building inspections for code compliance and conducts inspections for compliance with the CFC, California Building Code, Ventura County Fire Code, and Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code. While the project may increase the demand for fire protection services through the development of new residential and hotel buildings, demand would be met by the existing Fire Department facilities in the City. Proposed building plans would be subject to review by the Fire Department to ensure that the site design, access, and building floor plans comply with all applicable fire codes. The project is within the current service area for fire protection and would be reviewed by the County prior to issuance of building related permits. Construction of the project would not require new or expanded facilities, the construction of which could cause environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?

The City of Thousand Oaks has contracted with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office for police services since 1964. The Police Department is a full-service provider to the citizens of Thousand Oaks. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would conservatively increase the population at the project site by approximately 1,002 people (587 residents and 415 hotel employees). This increase in population would not substantially alter the existing staffing ratios and the project site is within the Ventura County Sherriff’s current service area. In addition, the applicant would be required to pay a Police Facilities Development Fee, in accordance with Section 8-2.03 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, which is used only for the purposes of acquiring or improving the police facilities used in providing police services to the City. The project would not create the need for new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

104 Environmental Checklist Public Services a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The City of Thousand Oaks is part of the Conejo Valley Unified School District, which includes 19 elementary schools, seven middle schools, and five high schools. Conejo Valley Unified School District forecasted student generation per residential development is as follows below: . 0.1549 elementary school student per residential unit . 0.0976 middle school student per residential unit . 0.1511 high school student per residential unit

Using the above generation rates, the project would generate approximately 34 new elementary school students, 22 new middle school students, and 33 new high school students (Conejo Valley Unified School District 2017). Future students of the proposed apartment complex would likely attend Banyan Elementary School, Sequoia Middle School, and Newbury Park High School (Debra Hanna, pers. comm. 2021). Based on current student enrollment and school capacities provided by Conejo Valley Unified School District (Debra Hanna, pers. comm. 2021), the District would be able to accommodate the future students from the proposed project. Typically, operating revenue for school districts is provided by local property taxes accrued at the State and allocated to each school district based on the average daily student attendance. Funds for facility improvements to accommodate new students is primarily generated by fees charged to new development projects. The project applicant would be required to pay the required State mandated school impact fees under the provisions of Senate Bill 50 and would be required to pay in-lieu fees for school facilities, in accordance with Section 9-3.1601 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “…is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, with required payment of mitigation fees, the project’s impacts to schools would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Per the Conservation Element of the City General Plan, the City’s open space system currently includes approximately 15,155 acres of natural open space and 1,658 acres of active open space (e.g., parks and golf courses) (City of Thousand Oaks 2013). The Conejo Valley Recreation and Park District operates and owns approximately 50 parks in the Conejo Valley. Parks closest to the project site include Newbury Gateway Park (0.2 mile west-southwest of the project site), Rancho Conejo Playfields (0.6 mile northeast of the site), Ventu Park (0.8 mile southeast of the site), Lynn Oaks Park (1.0 mile southeast of the site), and the Hope Nature Preserve (1.1 miles southeast of the site). The project would include a pool for the apartment complex but no parks. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the City’s estimated population is 126,484. Based on an

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments available 1,658 acres of active open space and parks, the City provides approximately 13.11 acres of active open space per 1,000 residents. The project would conservatively generate approximately 1,002 new residents in the City (587 residents and 415 hotel employees), which would reduce the amount of active open space per 1,000 residents by 0.10 acre to 13.01 acres. The project would not generate substantial demand for recreational facilities that would affect City parkland ratios. Although the project would incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities off-site, it would not directly affect any existing parks and the project applicant would be required to pay in-lieu fees to assist with the purchase and development of new community park facilities, in accordance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 9-3.1603. The project would not create the need for new or expanded parks and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Development of the project would result in incremental impacts to the City’s public services and facilities such as storm drain usage, solid waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater disposal. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would not require or result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities to service the project. Other commonly used public facilities include libraries and medical facilities. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would conservatively increase the City’s population by approximately 1,002 residents. The project site is in an area of Thousand Oaks that is currently served by existing public libraries, medical facilities, and other services. The nominal increase in population would not adversely affect these facilities such that it would create the need for new or expanded public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

106 Environmental Checklist Recreation 16 Recreation Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □ b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? In 1962, two years before the incorporation of the City of Thousand Oaks, the Conejo Recreation & Park District (CRPD) was established to create local parks and recreation programs for the growing population of the Conejo Valley, including areas now incorporated into the City of Thousand Oaks. The CRPD, in cooperation with the City, continues to serve as the public parks and recreation department in the area, including for facilities within the City as well as other portions of eastern Ventura County. Per the Conservation Element of the City General Plan, the City’s open space system currently includes approximately 15,155 acres of natural open space and 1,658 acres of active open space (e.g., parks and golf courses) (City of Thousand Oaks 2013). Parks near the project site are Newbury Gateway Park (0.4 mile away), Rancho Conejo Playfields (0.7 mile away), Ventu Park (1 mile away), and Walnut Grove Park (1.3 miles away). The project would not include recreational facilities and there are no existing recreational uses of the project site. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the City’s current estimated population is 126,484 persons. Based on an available 1,658 acres of active open space and parks, the City provides approximately 13.1 acres of active open space per 1,000 residents. The project would conservatively generate about 1,002 residents, which would decrease the current 13.11 acres per 1,000 residents ratio to 13.01 acres per 1,000 residents, which would not substantially alter Citywide demand for active open space and parks. Because the project would not (1) generate substantial demand for recreational facilities that would affect City parkland ratios, (2) increase deterioration of existing facilities, or (3) include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities resulting in adverse physical effect on the environment, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

108 Environmental Checklist Transportation 17 Transportation Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ ■ □ □

d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □

The analysis presented in this section is based in part on information contained in the Traffic and Circulation Study prepared for the project by Stantec, dated December 2020 and included as Appendix H to this IS-MND. The project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Newbury Road and Kelley Road in a commercial area of Thousand Oaks. The intersection is controlled via traffic lights and includes a crosswalk. Existing sidewalks are located around the perimeter of the project site adjacent to the roadways, with a discontinuous break located along Kelley Road. Neither Kelley Road or Newbury Road have bicycle lanes adjacent to the project site. The project site is serviced by Thousand Oaks Transit Bus Route 40, which provides connections to the City’s other four local bus routes and service to the project area with stops along Newbury Road (Stantec 2020; Thousand Oaks Transit 2020). a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Construction Construction of the project would generate traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the project site and vehicle trips to transport construction workers. Construction-related vehicles would travel to, and access, the project site via Newbury Road and Kelley Road. Construction worker trips were estimated based on default values provided by the CalEEMod (see Appendix A). The project would generate a maximum of 367 construction worker trips per day and would require a total of 4,391 hauling trips (round trip) during grading activities. Construction of the project would not involve any vehicle or equipment staging on Newbury Road or Kelley Road. Temporary lane closures

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments on Kelley Road or Newbury Road may be required during construction of the project site access road; however, impacts to the road would be short-term. Construction worker and hauling traffic may result in increased traffic in the vicinity of the project site; however, these impacts would be short-term and temporary and limited to the construction period. Construction transportation impacts would be less than significant.

Operation

Vehicular Access Currently, there is one driveway off Newbury Road and four driveway openings off Kelley Road. Of the four driveway openings along Kelley Road, one is a entrance only and another is an exit only for a U-shaped access road. Proposed project access would be provided via two driveways off Newbury Road and two driveways off Kelley Road to access the project’s parking areas. Each proposed driveway would provide both entrance and exit lanes for site accessibility. Each exit lane with include a stop sign its intersection with public roadways. The project would not include improvements or changes to existing public roadways. The proposed driveways would be situated on the site in manner that would support vehicle flow in the project area. Operation the proposed project would not generate traffic that would conflict with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system.

Bicycle Access Currently, there exist no bike lanes in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, Class II bike lanes could be provided along Kelley Road and Newbury Road, thus increasing bicycle accessibility to the project site and surrounding commercial uses. As laid out in the City’s Active Transportation Plan (2019), the City intends to reduce the travel lane width between Newbury Road and Borchard Road to accommodate bicycle lanes. Because construction activities are expected to be staged within the project site, neither project construction nor the completed project are expected to affect the City’s ability to implement this change. Impacts to bicycle access would be less than significant.

Pedestrian Access The project would address the existing sidewalk break along Kelley Road by providing a continuous sidewalk that would connect to the existing sidewalk on Newbury Road. On-site pedestrian pathways would provide adequate pedestrian connectivity throughout the site (Stantec 2020). As mentioned in Table 10 in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the nearest transit stop is located approximately 0.25 west of the project site at the “Newbury Road east of Borchard Road” bus stop for Route 40. This stop provides access to Route 40, which connects to Routes 41, 42, and 43 and The Oaks Mall transfer location. The project would support pedestrian access to nearby bus stops. Impacts to pedestrian access would be less than significant.

Circulation The City’s General Plan outlines transportation goals and policies, and the primary transportation goal of the General Plan is “to provide an integrated circulation and transportation system consistent with the Valley's form and needs” (City of Thousand Oaks 2020). The project would align with this goal by enhancing the pedestrian environment along Kelley Road through connection with existing sidewalks in the project area. Furthermore, as discussed above, construction and operation

110 Environmental Checklist Transportation of the project would not involve changes to the local roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, or public transportation environment that could impede circulation or conflict with the General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies appropriate criteria for evaluating transportation impacts. It states that land use projects with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact, and that projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The City has adopted an administrative policy stating that thresholds of significance will be determined on a case-by-case basis and a significant impact would occur if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee exceeds the citywide average VMT per capita or per employee of the baseline. As discussed in the project-specific Traffic and Circulation Study, the project’s daily residential VMT per capita is approximately 42 percent less than the Citywide average daily residential VMT per capita. Table 17 provides a summary of the daily VMT for the City as well as the project’s traffic analysis zone (TAZ). Additionally, the project’s daily employment VMT per employee is 6 percent less than the Citywide average daily employment VMT per employee. Because the project’s trip generation is below the City’s threshold of significance, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 17 VMT Analysis Summary

Project Component VMT Calculation Citywide Average Daily VMT Project TAZ Daily VMT

Residential Residential VMT per Capita 19.45 VMT 11.22 VMT

Commercial Employment VMT per Employee 18.87 VMT 17.74 VMT

Source: Stantec 2020

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would involve the construction of 218 residential units and a 120-room hotel at the southeast corner of the intersection of Kelley Road and Newbury Road. Kelley Road is a two-lane undivided road that connects Newbury Road with Lynn Road, and provides north/south access to the project site via two driveways. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via two driveways from Kelley Road and one driveway from Newbury Road. All driveways would be full access and controlled with stop signs facing egress traffic. The main project driveway on Newbury Road would be 36 feet wide with a raised median. Newbury Road along the project frontage has two travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane that allows for westbound left-turns. Future project residents and visitors traveling westbound along Newbury Road would be able to enter the project site using the left-turn lane, thereby minimizing delays and vehicle conflicts. However, a potential significant impact could occur due to a lack of adequate sight lines from the

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 111 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments project driveways. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels (Stantec 2020). The proposed northern project driveway along Kelley Road would be 36 feet with a raised median and the southern driveway along Kelley Road would be 30 feet wide without a raised median. Kelley Road is 40 feet wide and contains two travel lanes with curbside parking allowed along the east side. A potential significant impact could occur due to a lack of adequate sight lines from the project driveways. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels (Stantec 2020).

Mitigation Measure

T-1 Corner Sight Distance Evaluations Prior to occupancy of the project, corner sight distance requirements shall be evaluated by a qualified traffic engineer to determine if “no parking” zones are required along any segments of Newbury Road and/or Kelley Road near the project driveways to ensure adequate sight lines are provided. If, based on the evaluation, “no parking” zones are required, they shall be established and implemented prior to project occupancy. If such zones are not required, occupancy of the project shall be allowed without establishing “no parking” zones along Newbury Road and Kelley Road. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Construction of the proposed project would not cause any temporary lane closures on Newbury Road or Kelley Road, as staging would occur on-site (Stantec 2020). In addition, the project would not substantially alter site access. Currently, the project site is accessed directly via driveways on Newbury Road and Kelley Road. The proposed project would include the buildout of two new driveways, one on each of the main roads, as well as a driveway connection to the existing commercial driveway east of the project site (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Upon implementation of the proposed changes, the project site would be accessible by the existing driveways along Newbury Road and Kelley Road. Furthermore, the site plan and emergency access features would be subject to review and by the City and Ventura County Fire Department to ensure conformance with emergency access requirements is maintained. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter site access, result in inadequate emergency access, or introduce design features or incompatible uses, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, that would substantially increase hazards at the site. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

112 Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources 18 Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or □ □ □ ■ b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. □ □ □ ■

Senate Bill 18 of 2004 California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”

Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 113 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (Public Resources Code Section 21084.3). Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is: 1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues in or near the project site and as part of SB 18 requirements, Rincon contacted the NAHC on December 17, 2020 to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project site and a 0.25-mile radius surrounding it and a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area. A response was received from the NAHC on January 11, 2021, stating the SLF search had been completed with negative results. Based on the NAHC’s response of negative results, no further outreach action was taken. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Rincon Consultants, Inc. requested a search of the CHRIS at the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton (Appendix C). The SCCIC records search identified no archaeological resources located at the project site. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is required to ensure adequate procedures are followed in case of unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. To date, no tribes have requested notice of proposed projects from the City of Thousand Oaks in accordance with AB 52. The project would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources with mitigation incorporated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

114 Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems 19 Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □ b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □ c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □ d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □ e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 115 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Water The City has requested the on-site water mains be placed in a “loop” to ensure reliable interconnect of water supply. The project site is currently served, and would continue to be served, by the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Service Center, and the project would connect to existing water lines located within Newbury Road (City of Thousand Oaks 2009). The City provides potable water to approximately 40,300 people and sources this potable water from the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) (City of Thousand Oaks 2018). The 2018 Water Master Plan reports that the City of Thousand Oaks purchased approximately 9,600 acre-feet (AF) of water in 2015 from CMWD (City of Thousand Oaks 2018). According to the CMWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, CMWD has sufficient water supplies available for normal year water demands through the year 2040 with existing and supply and recycled water, in addition to dry and multiple dry years. Per the City of Thousand Oaks Water Master Plan, the project is located in the Ventu Pressure Zone, and is identified as a both Planned Development and Developable Vacant Lands. The project’s expected water demand, per the generation rates from the Water Master Plan (200 gpd/unit for apartments and 3.93 gpm/acre for commercial/residential), is approximately 25,596 gpd or 38 AFY total (City of Thousand Oaks 2018). This is within the projected annual demands by 2040 for the Ventu Pressure Zone (1,169 AFY). The project would not require the construction of new water supply facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond the on-site water main “loop,” which has been analyzed as part of the proposed project throughout this IS-MND. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater The City of Thousand Oaks utilizes the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant (HCTP) for wastewater treatment. The City serves approximately 38,000 wastewater customers and 17,000 potable water customers. HCTP discharges a daily average of 8 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water, has capacity to treat 14 mgd, and an available capacity of approximately 6 mgd (City of Thousand Oaks 2020). Assuming wastewater is approximately 80 percent of total water demand (2,000 gpd or 0.0020 mgd), the project would generate approximately 0.0016 mgd of wastewater. Based on the available 6 mgd capacity of the HCTP, project generated wastewater would contribute 0.03 percent of the remaining available capacity. The project would not require or result in new wastewater facilities, would not exceed wastewater commitments, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage As discussed in the Project Description, the project would include construction of an on-site storm drain and detention storage system sized to convey the 100-year frequency storm event and detain the excess runoff volume to limit maximum discharge to the 10-year frequency storm event. The system would be designed to capture and convey the peak site runoff flows from the 100-year frequency storm event to a proposed subsurface detention and outlet flow metering box facility capable of satisfying the detention and stormwater outlet mitigation requirements. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with the NPDES program and application of LID BMP’s would ensure the volume of runoff leaving the site is not increased. The project would be required to implement design features to prevent an increase in peak stormwater flows on the project site during any storm event. Consequently, the project would not increase demands on stormwater drainage infrastructure or result in the need for new infrastructure beyond those improvements that are included in the project design. Site improvements to connect to

116 Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems existing stormwater lines/drains would be within the existing developed area on and surrounding the project site and would not cause significant environmental effects outside of those as analyzed throughout this Initial Study. Impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.

Electric Power The project site is currently served by SCE. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the project would increase electricity demand at the project site by approximately 1.8 gW per year. The site’s electricity demands would continue to be served by SCE’s existing infrastructure. The project would require or result in the need for new electric power infrastructure and impacts related to electric power would be less than significant.

Natural Gas The project site is in the service area of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The project would increase natural gas demand at the project site by approximately 52,309 U.S. therms per year. The site’s natural gas demand would be served by SoCalGas’s existing infrastructure and the expected increase in natural gas demand would be nominal. The project would not result in the need for new natural gas infrastructure beyond those improvements that are included in the project design. Impacts related to natural gas infrastructure would be less than significant.

Telecommunications The project site is located in area with access to regional telecommunications infrastructure, as the site is located in a commercial area. Because the project would not result in the need for new telecommunications infrastructure, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? AB 341 set a new statewide goal of achieving 75 percent landfill diversion by 2020. In 2018, the City of Thousand Oaks generated 110,225.07 tons of solid waste, with a target disposal rate of 7.50 pounds per person per day. The City met the target disposal rate, generating approximately 4.6 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2018). It is anticipated the majority of solid waste would be serviced by the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center (SVLRC). The SVLRC is permitted to accept up to 3,000 tons per day of refuse, can accept 6,250 tons of recyclable materials and as of January 2019, has a total remaining capacity of 82,954,873 tons (Waste Management 2020; CalRecycle 2020). Based on solid waste generation estimates from CalEEMod, the project would generate approximately 165.9 tons of waste per year, and contribute 0.015 percent of the daily acceptance and 0.0001 percent of the total remaining capacity. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, and would comply with all federal, State, and local management statutes and regulations would be required to participate in the City diversion requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 117 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

118 Environmental Checklist Wildfire 20 Wildfire Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □ c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ □ ■ d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □ a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project may have a significant impact if it would substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Wildfires are of particular concern in areas designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The project site is not located within land classified as a VHFHSZ (CalFIRE 2010; CalFIRE 2020b). The closest VHFHSZ is located approximately 1,000 feet to the southeast. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 17, Transportation, the project would not impair or conflict with any adopted emergency response or evaluations plans, and the project would not result in inadequate accessibility for emergency response vehicles. The project would not impair an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 119 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The project may have a significant impact if, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, the project would exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project site is on relatively level ground with no hillsides and is not located in a VHFHSZ, but is approximately 1,000 feet northwest of a VHFSZ (UCLA 2019, CalFIRE 2010). Heavy duty equipment used during project construction equipment may produce sparks that could ignite vegetation. Although the site is in an urbanized area and surrounded by development, the proposed ornamental vegetation could serve as ignition. The project would comply with requirements related to construction equipment and fire suppressant (such as California Public Resources Code Section 4442). Therefore, with compliance with applicable State requirements, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed rehabilitation of existing buildings and the new buildings would meet all the latest fire code requirements. In addition to meeting fire code requirements, existing Ventura County Fire Department fire stations in the vicinity would serve the proposed project. Ventura County Fire Department Fire Station No. 35, currently located at 751 Mitchell Road is nearest the project site (Ventura County Fire Department 2020). Station No. 35 is approximately 0.9 driving miles northwest of the project site. Other Ventura County Fire Department fire stations in the project vicinity and approximate distances include Station 30 (2.6 miles), Station 32 (3.3 miles) and Station 31 (6.1 miles). Because the project site is not within a VHFHSZ, has none of the specified wildfire-exacerbating characteristics, would be compliant with the fire code, and is proximal to several Ventura County Fire Department stations, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? A project may have a significant impact if it would require the installation of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project is infill development that would rehabilitate two existing buildings (formerly operated by Conejo Valley Unified School District) and construct new buildings served by existing roads, emergency water sources, power lines, and utilities. Although utility trenching may occur to assure adequate service to new buildings, no extensions beyond the project site into areas of wildfire concern would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in the installation of associated infrastructure that would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and the project would have no impact. NO IMPACT

120 Environmental Checklist Wildfire d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? A project may have a significant impact if it would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The project site is relatively level, is not immediately downslope from naturally vegetated hillsides and is not located in a designated flood zone (City of Thousand Oaks 2014). As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater runoff generated by the proposed buildings would follow existing drainage patterns and the majority of runoff would flow into the proposed on-site storm drain system. The proposed storm drain system would direct runoff through a curb drain onto Newbury Road. During final design, the site would be analyzed and conditioned by City Public Works to ensure that the project building is protected from a 100-year storm event. Preliminary calculations in the hydrology report show that the project would fulfill local agency requirements. The urban project location and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would not expose people or structures to significant downslope or downstream flooding or landslide risks resulting from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 121 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

122 Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Does the project: a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ ■ □ □ b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □ c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ ■ □ a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project site was previously developed and project implementation would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 which require pre-construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance measures and conformance with City tree protection ordinances. The project would not impact wildlife habitats or cause wildlife populations to drop below self- sustaining levels. Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 6, Geology and Soils, explain that the project would not adversely affect any historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Two

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 123 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments historic buildings on the project site would be rehabilitated rather than demolished. Additionally, there are no archaeological or paleontological resources located on the project site. Mitigation measures have been identified for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological and paleontological resources, which would ensure adequate procedures are followed in case of unanticipated discovery, such as halting work and retainment of a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As discussed in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 20, the project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for all environmental issues. These include short-term, long-term, and where appropriate, cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts of the following resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Section 3, Air Quality, Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 13, Noise. CalEEMod was utilized to assess the air quality and GHG impacts resulting from the project, leading to a conclusion that the impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions would be less than significant when compared to applicable thresholds that take into account cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the project would contribute to cumulative operational noise increases, through the addition of on-site HVAC units. The addition of HVAC units would only increase ambient noise levels by 0.4 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s cumulatively considerable noise standard increase of 1.0 dBA for uses currently exposed to noise levels between 60-70 dBA CNEL. In addition, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project would not result in significant VMT related impacts and the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Certain resource areas (e.g., agriculture and forestry resources, and mineral resources) were determined to result in no impact in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Other issues (e.g., geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials) are by their nature project-specific and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. In addition, the project would not generate substantial population growth in exceedance of regional and City forecasts; therefore, it would not contribute substantially to cumulative increases in demand for public services, or utilities such as water, wastewater, and solid waste service. Accordingly, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

124 Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, and as analyzed in this Initial Study, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality contaminants, hazards related to adverse geologic conditions, exposure to hazards and hazardous materials, and excessive noise. As detailed in analyses in Section 3, Air Quality, Section 7, Geology and Soils, Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 13, Noise, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse effects related to these hazards. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations, as described throughout this Initial Study would reduce potential impacts to human beings to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 125 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

This page left intentionally blank

126 References

References

Bibliography American Legal Publishing Corporation. The City of Thousand Oaks, CA Municipal Code. June 30, 2020. Accessible at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/thousandoaks/latest/thousandoaks_ca/0-0-0-1 (accessed January 2021). Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper – Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed February 2021). Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed February 2021). Bell, A. 2021. Collections search of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County for the Daylight Apartments Project, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, California. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed September 2020). ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed February 2021). ______. 2018a. Area Designations for National Ambient Air Quality Standards Ozone. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2018/fed_o3.pdf?_ga=2.255490625.853356379.161117 0161-695766573.1603302852 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation v.1.0.2. July 20, 2018. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical- documentation.pdf (accessed February 2021). ______. 2019a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national- ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed January 2021). ______. 2019b. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed January 2021). ______. 2019c. Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ozone. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2019/state_o3.pdf?_ga=2.12277757.853356379.161117 0161-695766573.1603302852 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2019d. Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards PM10. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2019/state_pm10.pdf?_ga=2.217823967.853356379.16 11170161-695766573.1603302852 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2020. EMFAC2017 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ (accessed February 2021).

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 127 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

______. 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed February 2021). California Department of Finance. 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 – 2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed December 2020). California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2018. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail. 2018. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/%20DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionDeta il/531/Year/2018 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2020. SWIS Facility Detail: Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3954 (accessed January 2021). California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation- energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021b. “Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas- california (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021c. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed February 2021). California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1993. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Southern Ventura County – Aggregate Resources Only. [Map]. https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=OFR_93-10 (accessed December 2020). ______. 2009. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/tsunami/ (accessed February 2021). ______. 2020a. California Important Farmland Finder. 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/ (accessed December 2020). ______. 2020b. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed January 2021). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2010. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Thousand Oaks. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6024/thousand_oaks.pdf (accessed December 2020). ______. 2020a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/CALFIRE- Forestry::fhsz-in-lra?geometry=-118.953%2C34.175%2C-118.874%2C34.188 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2020b. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414 (accessed December 2020).

128 References

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. EnviroStor Database. Accessible at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=thousand+oaks (accessed February 2021). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf ______. 2020a. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01. April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed January 2021). ______. 2020b. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000df cc19983 (accessed January 2021). California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. City of Thousand Oaks. 1974. Scenic Highways Element. https://www.toaks.org/home/showdocument?id=346 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2000. General Plan Goals Noise Element. https://www.toaks.org/departments/community- development/planning/general-plan/general-plan-goals-and-policies (accessed January 2021). ______. 2013a. Conservation Element – Thousand Oaks General Plan. https://www.toaks.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=332 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2013b. Housing Element – Thousand Oaks General Plan. https://www.toaks.org/home/showdocument?id=338 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2014. Safety Element – Thousand Oaks General Plan. https://www.toaks.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=344 (accessed January 2021). ______. 2018a. Sustainability Plan for Municipal Operations. https://www.toaks.org/home/showdocument?id=18211 (accessed December 2020). ______. 2018b. Water Master Plan. https://www.toaks.org/home/showdocument?id=17486 (accessed December 2020). ______. 2020. General Plan Goals and Policies. https://www.toaks.org/departments/community- development/planning/general-plan/general-plan-goals-and-policies (accessed December 2020). Conejo Valley Unified School District. 2017. Facilities Master Plan. Accessible at: http://www.conejousd.org/Portals/0/Departments/Business%20Services/Planning%20and% 20Facilities/Build%20CVUSD/Documents/Master%20Plans/item5-conejo.pdf (accessed January 2021). Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October. Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 1990. Geologic map of the Camarillo and Newbury Park quadrangles, Ventura County, California: Dibblee Foundation Map DF-28, scale 1:24,000.

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 129 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2010. FEMA Flood Map Service: Search By Address. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1872%20newbury%20rd%2C%20newb ury%20park%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor (accessed February 2021). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed January 2021). Gorian & Associates (G&A). 2020. Updated Geotechnical Evaluation – Proposed Hotel and Apartment Redevelopment 1872 Newbury Road, City of Thousand Oaks, California. Hanna, Debra. 2021. Personal communication between Debra Hanna, Planning Specialist at Conejo Valley Unified School District and Daphne Virlar-Knight, Environmental Planner at Rincon consultants, Inc. January 20, 2021. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W. 1990. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Paleobiology Database. 2021. Online fossil locality database. Available online: https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/ (accessed February 2021). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Attachment E – Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed February 2021). ______. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf (accessed February 2021). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx (accessed February 2021). Stantec. 2020. Daylight Project Draft Traffic and Circulation Study. December 21, 2020. State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed February 2021).

130 References

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=thousand+oaks %2C+california (accessed February 2021). Thousand Oaks Transit. 2020. Bus Routes. https://www.toaks.org/departments/public- works/transit/bus-routes-and-schedules (accessed December 2020). University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). 2019. Fire Hazard of Every Building in California: An Interactive Map. https://gis.ucla.edu/blog/fire-hazard-every-building-in-california- interactive-map (accessed December 2020). University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2020. UCMP specimen search portal. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed February 2021). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: October 23, 2020. epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations- greenhouse-gases (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021. Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database. https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-search (accessed February 2021). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Wetlands Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML (accessed January 2021). United States Green Business Council (USGBC). 2008. Building Area Per Employee By Business Type. Ventura County. 2011. Airport Master Plan for Camarillo Airport. https://vcportal.ventura.org/AIRPORTS/docs/document_library/Camarillo_Airport_Master_ Plan.pdf (accessed January 2021). Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). 2003. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf (accessed January 2021). ______. 2006. “Air Quality Assessment for CEQA.” http://www.vcapcd.org/environmental- review.htm#What_about_greenhouse_gases_and_CEQA (accessed February 2021). ______. 2016. 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.vcapcd.org/AQMP- 2016.htm (accessed January 2021). Ventura County Fire Department. 2020. Fire Stations. https://vcfd.org/services/operations/stations/ (accessed December 2020). Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance. 2020. Energy Action Plan – The City of Ventura. https://www.vcenergy.org/services/local-government/energy-action-plans/ (accessed February 2021).

Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 131 City of Thousand Oaks Daylight Apartments

List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of Thousand Oaks. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Jennifer Haddow, PhD, Principal in Charge Melissa Whittemore, Project Manager Nik Kilpelainen, Assistant Project Manager Jacob Cisneros, Environmental Planner Jorge Mendieta, Environmental Scientist/Paleontologist Annaliese Miller, Environmental Planner Daphne Virlar-Knight, Environmental Planner Audrey Brown, GIS Specialist

132