HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2020 0219 REG CCSA ITEM 08ACITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of February 19, 2020
ACTION Adopted Resolution No. 2020-
3887.
Introduced Ordinance No. 481 and
Scheduled Second Reading and Adoption
for March 4, 2020.
Introduced Ordinance No. 482, as
Amended, and Scheduled Second Reading
and Adoption for March 4, 2020.
Adopted Resolution No. 2020-3888, as
Amended.
BY B.Garza.
A. Consider a Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration and Approving General
Plan Amendment No. 2014-01; an Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 2014-
01; an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement No. 2014-03, and a
Resolution Approving Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869; for the Development of a 69 Unit Multi-
Family Residential Condominium Project with a Recreation Center and
Associated Site Improvements on a Previously-Developed 4.01-Acre Lot at 635
Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application of Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC.
Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and
close the public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-3887 adopting the
Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01; and
3) Introduce Ordinance No. 481, approving Zone Change No. 2014-01, for first
reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for March 4,
2020, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance;
and 4) Introduce Ordinance No. 482, approving Development Agreement No.
2014-03, for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the
agenda for March 4, 2020, for purposes of providing second reading and
adoption of the ordinance; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-3888 approving
Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 5869. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED) (Staff: Freddy Carrillo)
Item: 8.A.
Item: 8.A.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director
BY: Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner ll
DATE: 02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration and
Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01; an Ordinance
Approving Zone Change No. 2014-01; an Ordinance Approving
Development Agreement No. 2014-03, and a Resolution Approving
Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 5869; for the Development of a 69 Unit Multi-Family
Residential Condominium Project with a Recreation Center and
Associated Site Improvements on a Previously-Developed 4.01-Acre
Lot at 635 Los Angeles Avenue, on the Application of Menashe Kozar
for Sky Line 66, LLC.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2014, Menashe “Manny” Kozar, for Summer Land Partners Group, Inc.,
(on behalf of Sky Line 66, LLC) filed an application to develop 69 multi-family residential
condominiums, a 1,916 square-foot recreation center, and associated site
improvements on a previously-developed 4.01-acre lot at 635 Los Angeles Avenue.
The applicant has requested the following entitlements in order to pursue development
of the project, known as “Green Island Villas”:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2014-01 to change the land use
designation of the subject property from General Commercial (C-2) to Very
High Density Residential (VH15U/AC); and
• Zone Change (ZC) No. 2014-01 to amend the zoning of the property from
Commercial Office (C-O) to Residential Planned Development (RPD); and
1
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 2
• Development Agreement (DA) No. 2014-03 to ensure the orderly
development of the Project subject to the terms and conditions negotiated
between the City and property owner; and
• Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2014-02 for construction of the
Project and associated site improvements; and
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 5869 to create 70 parcels (69
condominium units and one common area parcel).
The proposed project includes 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a 1,916
square-foot recreation center that includes a fitness center, recreation room, storage
room and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park, playground, and associated
site improvements. The units are provided within 17 two-story buildings, with a total of
18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. Each unit would include a two-car
garage and a total of 35 guest parking spaces would be dispersed throughout the site
(“Project”).
Previous Applications:
A number of commercial and residential development projects have been proposed on
the subject property since 1997. A summary of each is provided below.
On May 7, 1997, the City Council approved GPA No. 96-2, changing the General Plan
land use designation for the site from Medium Density Residential (M) to C-2, along with
Zone Change No. 96-1, changing the zoning from, Single Family Residential (R-1-8) to
C-O. On September 17, 1997, the City Council approved Commercial Planned
Development Permit (CPD) No. 96-3 for the construction of two one-story buildings and
a two-story office building, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 5056 to subdivide an the
existing parcel into three parcels, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 96-2 to allow a
50-foot tall tower element. Building permits for the CPD and CUP were never obtained
and the TPM was never processed for a Final Map. Subsequently, the CPD, CUP and
TPM have expired.
On May 14, 2001, Grand Moorpark, LLC (“Grand Moorpark”) acquired the Project site.
On November 30, 2001 the group filed GPA Pre-Screening Application No. 2001-02 to
change the General Plan land use designation of the property from C-2 to VH15U/AC.
The Affordable Housing/Community Development Committee had concerns regarding
potential impacts associated with changing the planned commercial property to non-
commercial uses and density of the development. On March 19, 2003, the City Council
asked Grand Moorpark and Shea Homes to fund a commercial demand study before
issuing a decision on the GPA Pre-Screening application. Previously, Shea Homes was
considered for a GPA Pre-Screening to change the General Plan land use designation
for 12.39 acres of land located at the terminus of Freemont Street, south of Los Angeles
Avenue and east of Majestic Court from C-2 to VH15U/AC. The commercial demand
2
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 3
study was presented at the City Council meeting of October 6, 2004. The study
recommended retaining the property’s commercial land use designation. On
December 1, 2004, GPA Pre-Screening application No. 2001-02 was denied.
On October 18, 2006, the City Council approved CPD No. 2005-04 for the construction
of a 78,939 square-foot medical office building. A one-year extension was granted on
December 13, 2007, and a second extension on October 8, 2008. On November 5,
2008, City Council approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5869 to subdivide the
approved medical office building into condominium units for sale or lease. Building
permits for the CPD were never obtained and the TTM was never processed for a Final
Map. Subsequently, the CPD and TTM expired on October 7, 2009.
On June 16, 2010, City Council approved CPD No. 2010-01 for the same medical office
project approved in 2006; however, the permit expired on June 15, 2011. A subsequent
application for the same medical office project was submitted on April 27, 2012, as CPD
No. 2012-01. This project was approved by the City Council on January 16, 2013. An
extension was granted on December 4, 2013, extending the validity of the approval
through January 16, 2015. Building permits for the project entitled by the CPD were
never obtained and subsequently the CPD expired on January 16, 2016.
On May 21, 2014, the City Council authorized the acceptance of a GPA application for
review and consistent with GPA Pre-Screening No. 2013-01 to change the General Plan
land use designation of subject property from C-2 to VH15U/AC to allow construction of
66-attached residential dwelling units, with a $20,000 contribution to an updated
commercial demand study. On October 10, 2014, Sky Line 66 filed GPA No. 2014-01,
ZC No. 2014-01, RPD No. 2014-02, and DA No. 2014-03 for a 66-unit townhouse
development and submitted the $20,000 contribution for the commercial demand study.
The City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Parvin and
Councilmember Mikos to negotiate the Development Agreement. On August 21, 2014,
Grand Moorpark, LLC, sold the property to Sky Line 66, LLC.
The updated commercial demand study was presented to the City Council on
September 7, 2016. The report recommended residential uses for the less-than-optimal
vacant properties designated for commercial uses, including the subject property. On
March 20, 2017, Summer Land Partners Group, Inc., on behalf of Sky Line 66, LLC,
submitted an application for TTM No. 5869 for a condominium map on the property in
association with GPA No. 2014-01, ZC No. 2014-01, RPD No. 2014-02, and DA No.
2014-03. The Applicant later revised the TTM request to Vesting TTM No. 5869 for
condominium purposes.
On October 22, 2018, Sky Line 66 met with staff to discuss a new proposal to develop
77 residential units for the site. Staff expressed concerns regarding the proposed
density and the resulting loss of private recreational facilities and open space. The
applicant addressed the concerns by decreasing the number of units to 69 and adding a
recreation center with amenities.
3
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 4
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions:
The 4.01-acre property is currently vacant and located on the north side of California
State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue), between Shasta Avenue and Leta Yancy Road.
The site was previously developed with two single-family homes and a detached garage
and was demolished in 1996. Primary street access to the property is provided by Los
Angeles Avenue. Secondary access is proposed to the east through the adjacent
Mission Bell Plaza shopping center, consistent with an Easement Agreement between
Mission Bell Plaza and the City (described further in this report). The following table
summarizes the General Plan, zoning, and existing land uses on the subject property
and vicinity.
Location Existing
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existing
Land Use
Site
General
Commercial
(C-2)
Very High
Density
Residential
(VH15U/AC)
Commercial Office
(C-O)
Residential
Planned
Development
(RPD)
Vacant Lot
North
Medium Density
Residential
(4DU/AC)
Single Family
Residential
(R-1-8)
Detached
Single
Family
Homes
South
High Density
Residential
(7DU/AC)
Residential Planned
Development
(RPD 7U/AC)
Vacant Lot
East
General
Commercial
(C-2)
Commercial
Planned
Development
(CPD)
Mission Bell
Plaza
Shopping
Center
West
Medium Density
Residential
(4DU/AC)
Single Family
Residential
(R-1-8)
Detached
Single Family
Homes
Land Use:
The General Plan and zoning of the subject property currently designates the site for
commercial uses. Based on an updated commercial demand study (dated August 26,
2016), identifies that the City has an excessive area of land dedicated for commercial
retail. The study further recognized opportunities for office space developments would
likely be limited to institutional or smaller professional firms. While commercial
vacancies remain higher than historic levels, the State has also declared that a housing
crisis exists and directed local governments to identify opportunities to provide
additional housing. Based on the totality of this information, the proposed residential
land use and development align with the realities of the local commercial real estate
market, as well as, priorities to develop additional housing.
4
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 5
Mission Bell Easement Agreement:
On September 1, 2011, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Mission Bell
Plaza West, LP and other ownership interests of Mission Bell Plaza, over unpaid debt to
the City. Part of the Settlement Agreement included a provision for Mission Bell West,
LP, to provide an assignable easement to the City that would provide reciprocal access
between Mission Bell Plaza and the proposed development. The Improvements
specified in the Agreement include: removal of existing improvements in the location of
the proposed driveway extension, including, but not limited to, block wall, planters,
curbing, irrigation and landscaping, and replace with new curbing, irrigation tie-ins, and
asphalt. This Easement Agreement required certain improvements to be completed on
or before December 31, 2016, or the easement would expire. On June 15, 2016, the
City Council extended the agreement to January 1, 2018, and on November 1, 2017,
City Council approved an additional extension to January 1, 2020. On December 4,
2019, the City Council approved a third extension to the Easement Agreement to
June 1, 2020, however the Easement Agreement was never fully executed.
Discussions between the City and Mission Bell Plaza West, LP, continued after the
expiration of the Easement Agreement and the terms of a new amended and restated
agreement have been reached.
Mission Bell Plaza has requested the easement to be placed in a location further north
than previously identified. Location of the proposed easement has been agreed upon
and is sufficient to meet the ingress/egress needs of the Menashe Kozar Skyline 66
project. An amended and restated easement agreement will be brought forth at the
March 4, 2020, City Council meeting for Council consideration. Accordingly, staff has
proposed a condition of approval that will require the Applicant to provide evidence of a
recorded easement allowing access between the Project and Mission Bell Plaza
shopping center in perpetuity before permits are issued. If the location of the easement
requires modification to building locations and the approved number of units has not
changed, the Community Development Director may evaluate and approve an
alternative access design.
General Plan Consistency:
The current General Plan designation of the site is General Commercial (C-2). The
applicant is requesting a GPA to change the land use designation of the site to Very
High Density Residential 15U/AC.
The VH15U/AC land use designation is intended for residential development
characterized by multi-family attached units, including apartment and condominium
buildings. It is intended that this category utilize innovative site planning, provide on-site
recreational amenities and be located in close proximity to major community facilities,
business centers and major arterials. The proposed General Plan land use designation
of VH15U/AC allows a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre; however, through
negotiation of the Development Agreement, the Project is proposed at a gross density
5
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 6
of 17.2 dwelling units per acre, with 11 units (15%) deed restricted at the low
affordability level (not to exceed 80% of the area median income adjusted for family
size). A copy of the 2019 Income Limits for Ventura County is included as Attachment 2
for reference.
The site design, including proposed building locations, size, height, setbacks, massing,
scale, architectural style, colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element and Land Use Element:
Housing Element Goals and Policies:
• GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan
designations to provide a range of housing opportunities.
Policy 2.2: Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services, facilities,
circulation, and other needed infrastructure to support development.
• GOAL 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households
and special needs groups.
Policy 3.4: Require, in aggregate, 10% of new units to be affordable to lower-
income households. Establishing priority for usage of in-lieu fee is as follows: 1st
priority – production of affordable housing; 2nd priority – subsidy of affordable
housing; 3rd priority – housing rehabilitation; 4th priority – housing assistance;
and 5th priority – staffing costs.
Land Use Element Goals and Policies:
• GOAL 3: Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic
segments of the community.
Policy 3.3: Where feasible, inclusionary zoning shall be used to require that a
percentage of new, private residential development be affordable to very low to
moderate income households.
• GOAL 5: Develop new residential housing which is compatible with the character
of existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes land use incompatibility.
Policy 5.1: Multiple-family dwellings shall be developed in close proximity to
employment opportunities, shopping areas, public parks, and transit lines, with
careful consideration of the proximity to and compatibility with single-family
neighborhoods. In addition, to the Project’s conformance with the Goals and
Policies of the General Plan, the development also provides the City with
additional housing units required by the General Plan Housing Element and State
Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). A summary of the
6
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 7
City’s current (5th Cycle, 2014-2021) Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) obligation, remaining housing units, and the impacts of the proposed
development are outlined in the following table:
Housing Type RHNA Required
for 2014-2021
Moorpark
Cumulative Totals
5th cycle to date
Housing still
needed/required
by 2021
Green Island Villas
Proposal
Very Low Income 289 Units 15 Units 274 Units 0 Units
Low Income 197 Units 36 Units 161 Units 11 Proposed Units
Moderate 216 Units 10 Unit 206 Units 0 Units
Above Moderate 462 Units 518 Units 0 (Surplus of 56
Units)
58 Proposed Units
Totals: 1,164 Units
Required
579 Total Units
Built in Moorpark
2014-2018
641 Additional
Units Required
by 2021
69 Proposed
Units
HCD’s review and approval of the RHNA methodology and allocation of units for the
upcoming 6th Cycle (2021-2029) is currently underway. Projections for Moorpark
include 1,287 total units in addition to the units allocated with the 5th cycle.
Zoning Consistency:
The current zoning designation is Commercial Office (C-O). The Applicant is requesting
an amendment to RPD.
The purpose of the RPD zone is to provide areas for communities to be developed
using modern land planning and unified design techniques. This zone provides a
flexible regulatory procedure in order to encourage:
1. Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential
development of surrounding areas; and
2. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and
the preservation of the natural features of sites; and
3. Variety and innovation in site design, density and housing unit options, including
garden apartments, townhouses and single-family dwellings; and
4. Lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks; and
5. A more varied, attractive and energy-efficient living environment, as well as,
greater opportunities for recreation than would be possible under other zone
classifications.
The Project is designed to be consistent with the RPD zone in that it would be
developed in a vacant lot and would provide new homes near other adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The Project would include a variety of different size buildings as each
7
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 8
building would contain two to six units, and would be separated by green corridors.
Improvements would be installed onsite as access to the Project would be from an
existing street (Los Angeles Avenue) and an easement located within the Mission Bell
Plaza shopping center. The Applicant is also proposing a recreational area that
includes a recreation center, pool, playground, and dog park that can be utilized by the
residents.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 5869:
The proposed VTTM would subdivide the 4.01-acre lot to create one master ground lot
with 69 airspace condominium units. The Applicant is requesting a VTTM as part of the
residential development in order to create the condominiums and common parcel. A
vesting map grants vested rights to proceed with a project in accordance with the
ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for approval of
the vesting tentative map is complete. The driveway, guest parking, access easement,
and recreation facilities would be a common area parcel shared by all residents. The
Applicant would be required to submit a Final Map before the VTTM expires.
Residential Planned Development Permit (RPD) No. 2014-02:
An RPD is required for projects creating five or more separate residential units. As
mentioned above, the Applicant is requesting to subdivide the parcel to create 69
airspace condominiums on one common area lot. The Planning Commission may
recommend approval of an RPD to the City Council if the Project meets the RPD
development standards, including but not limited to building height, minimum lot size,
and setbacks for the RPD zone.
The following table describes the residential development proposed with the RPD:
Bedroom Size Number
of Units
Number of
Parking
Spaces Inside
Garage
Gross Area
Range for Units
(sq. ft.)
Total Area
Calculation of Units
2 Bedrooms,
plus 2 ½
Bathrooms
18 Units 2 Spaces 1,685 sq. ft. to
1,813 sq. ft.
32,634 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms,
plus 2 ½
Bathrooms
51 Units 2 Spaces 1,876 sq. ft. to
2,033 sq. ft.
103,683 sq. ft.
Eleven of the proposed units will be reserved at the low affordability level (not to exceed 80% of
the area median income adjusted for family size) pursuant to the proposed Development
Agreement. At a minimum, these units shall include 1,800 square feet with 3 bedrooms and 2.5
baths each.
8
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 9
Setbacks and Building Height:
The RPD zoning district allows for the development of project-specific setbacks,
including but not limited to building height and minimum lot size. The applicant is
proposing 17 buildings ranging from two to six units each. Each unit is proposed with a
minimum 250 square-foot back yard. Buildings that are proposed adjacent to existing
single-family development at the north, east, and west of the site would include a 15-
foot rear yard setback. This buffer is consistent with the rear yard setback provided by
the adjacent single-family homes. Buildings located along the southerly property line, at
Los Angeles Avenue, have a 10-foot rear yard setback. The side yard setback for
corner units ranges from 14 feet to 19 feet. Heights of the proposed buildings range
from 24 feet and 7 inches to 28 feet and 10 inches. The community center, located in
the center of the site, is proposed at a height of 17 feet and 10 inches. As designed, the
building forms, setbacks, and height are generally consistent with development in the
vicinity of the Project site, including the scale of commercial development and adjacent
single-family residences.
The following table summarizes the development standards of the RPD zoning
designation as well as the existing single-family neighborhoods to the north and west of
the Project site.
Setback Regulations
Existing Single Family
Homes Located to the
North and West of the
Proposed Project Site
RPD Zone
Regulations for
Multifamily
Residential
Proposed
Residential
Planned
Development
(RPD)
A. Front yard setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
B. Side yard setback,
interior side 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet
C. Side yard setback,
street side 10 feet 10 feet 14 feet
D. Rear yard setback 15 feet Determined by the
RPD permit 15 feet
E. Building height
maximum 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Architecture:
The architectural style of the homes and recreation building is Spanish Mission design.
The residential buildings are proposed with a variation of earth toned colors on smooth
plaster finish with clay tile roof. Each unit would have an approximately 20-foot tall
exterior chimney located on the side wall. Each unit is also provided with a 54 square-
foot recessed uncovered second-story balcony with a decorative metal guardrail at the
rear of the building. A rectangular transom window above the entry door was added to
provide horizontal consistency and add natural lighting to the homes. The applicant is
9
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 10
also proposing an open lattice wood trellis above each entryway and a second-story bay
window above the overhead sectional garage door. To reduce noise from Los Angeles
Avenue, a condition of approval has been added that requires windows along the south
and east facades of the Project to be a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of 40. The proposed architecture is well-designed and is compatible with the
existing development in the vicinity of the Project.
Staff has been working closely with the applicant regarding the design of the recreation
building. The single-story building would have a smooth plaster finish with clay tile roof.
Picture windows would be located on all four sides of the building. The main entrance
to the building is located at the south elevation, which faces the primary entrance to the
Project site and features prominently along Los Angeles Avenue. This current proposal
represents the third design concept for this building and is the most compatible with the
residential buildings and adjacent development. Previous designs included angular,
modern features and a larger, two-story building with barreled columns that were
generally not compatible with the character of the existing community.
Circulation and Traffic:
The primary access to the site would be provided from Los Angeles Avenue with a
secondary access (via easement) from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking
lot, directly to the east of the property. The driveway from Los Angeles Avenue would
remain unsignalized and would accommodate right-turn-only ingress and egress, which
eliminates the potential for eastbound related left-turn conflicts on Los Angeles Avenue.
Residents wanting to travel eastbound along Los Angeles Avenue could exit the Project
site via the secondary access through Mission Bell Plaza and through the signalized
intersection at Leta Yancy Road and Los Angeles Avenue. The Project has been
designed in a manner that ensures the safe circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.
The applicant submitted a trip generation assessment report conducted by Gibson
Transportation Consulting, Inc. (August 27 2019). The report concluded the proposed
Project would generate a total of 32 trips during the morning peak hour and 39 trips
during the afternoon peak hour. The volume of these trips is less than significant and
would not reduce the level of service of adjacent intersections.
Parking:
The Parking Ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit for two or more bedrooms,
and 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking. The applicant is proposing a two-car garage
for each unit and 35 guest parking spaces located throughout the site and in front of the
recreation center. As designed, the proposed residential and guest parking provided
comply with the off-street parking requirement of the City Code. Garages would be
accessed from an alley driveway on which no parking would be allowed. Although
residents would have access to the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot, a
10
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 11
condition of approval has been included that prohibits residents and guests from parking
in the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza parking lot.
The following table summarizes the parking requirement on the subject property.
Number of Parking Spaces Required for a 69 Multi-Family
Residential Condominium Development
Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
2 spaces per unit 138 138
0.5 spaces per unit (for guest) 34.5 35
Total 172.5* 173
*Pursuant to City Code Section 17.32.030, fractional spaces of .5 or less are rounded down to
the nearest whole number.
Site Improvements and National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards
Requirements (NPDES):
The Project has been designed to provide for all necessary on-site and off-site storm
drain improvements including the imposition of National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements. Best Management Practices Drainage Facilities are
required to be provided so that surface flows are intercepted and treated. These items
would be reviewed by the City Engineer/Public Works Director as part of the condition
compliance process.
Grading and Drainage:
Construction of the Project would result in ground surface disturbance during site
clearance and grading. Uniformly applied conditions of approval imposed on the Project
would require stockpiles, excavation, and exposed soil to be covered with secured
tarps, plastic sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil
stabilize. Furthermore, applicant would be required to obtain a California State Water
Resources Control Board Construction General Permit, which requires development of
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The proposed Project would alter the landform and concentrate drainage to the existing
streets and storm drain pipes. The effects of increased impervious surface area would
increase stormwater runoff and potentially result in downstream flooding and degraded
water quality. A condition of approval has been added that requires the Developer to
revise the grading, street improvements, and drainage plans to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer/Public Works Director. These reports shall demonstrate that historic
drainages are not adversely impacted.
11
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 12
Landscaping:
The Applicant has proposed a landscape plan that includes a variety of trees, shrubs,
and groundcover across the property. The plan also includes landscaping in the
backyards, including the use of perimeter trees along the west, north, and east property
lines. These trees in particular help screen the proposed buildings from the view of the
adjacent single-family neighborhood and maintain the privacy of adjacent single-family
homes. These trees would be required to be maintained by the Homeowner’s
Association (HOA). A condition of approval will require the developer to provide a gated
point of access to the trees within each rear yard. This would allow maintenance
workers to enter the rear yard through the fence. In addition, the HOA would also
maintain the landscape provided in the public areas.
Development Agreement (DA) No. 2014-03:
Government Code Section 65864 and City of Moorpark Municipal Code Section 15.40
provide an opportunity for a DA between the City and property owners in connection
with proposed plans of development for specific properties. The proposed DA, included
in Attachment 9, is designed to strengthen the planning process, to provide developers
some certainty in the development process, and to assure development in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Vesting of development rights, timing
of development, development fees, and residential density and provision of affordable
housing are addressed in the proposed DA.
The terms of the DA have been negotiated by an Ad Hoc committee of the City Council
consisting of Mayor Parvin and Councilmember Mikos. The Planning Commission held
a public hearing on the proposed DA application as discussed in a subsequent section
of this report. Section 15.40.090 of the Municipal Code also requires a City Council
public hearing for a development agreement and adoption of an ordinance is required
for approval.
Community Outreach:
On March 8, 2018, Andrew Brady (former attorney for the applicant) held a community
meeting at 799 Moorpark Avenue (City Hall). At that time, the applicant was proposing
a 64 unit multi-family residential condominium development with access from Shasta
Avenue. Mr. Brady presented the Project and responded to general questions. Staff
was in attendance in order to observe these discussions and the comments presented
by the community. Several in attendance expressed support for the Project but had
concerns regarding potential impacts to the neighborhood resulting from access at
Shasta Avenue. In response, the applicant revised the plans to remove the proposed
access to Shasta Avenue, relocate the primary access to Los Angeles Avenue and
provide five additional units.
12
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 13
Findings:
Formal findings are not required for approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change because they are legislative acts. However, staff has included recommended
findings for these actions, along with the required findings for the RPD, VTTM, and DA
below.
General Plan Amendment:
1. A commercial demand study was prepared and concluded that commercial use
development was not viable, in favor of residential development on the subject
property.
2. The Project will help to increase the variety of housing types within the City and
will provide 11 affordable housing units in furtherance of the City’s Housing
Element.
Zone Change:
1. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed General Plan
land use designation.
2. The proposed zoning designation is intended for residential development
characterized by multiple family attached units and apartment and condominium
buildings.
3. The proposed zoning designation would support the development of residential
uses with on-site recreational amenities, and be located in close proximity to
major community facilities, business centers and major arterials.
Residential Planned Development Permit:
1. The site design, including structure locations, size, height, setbacks, massing,
scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the goals
and policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as proposed to be
amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 and Zone Change No.
2014-01, in that the Project would provide both market rate and 11 deed
restricted affordable housing units in a design that is comparable in scale with
surrounding residential and commercial development.
2. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of
properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that adequate provision
of public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured
in the processing of this request and the use proposed is similar to adjacent
uses, and access to or utility of those adjacent uses are not hindered by this
Project.
13
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 14
3. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the
surrounding area in that the Project will be located within a residential
neighborhood and will be screened by a perimeter of trees.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map:
1. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City’s General
Plan as proposed to be amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, in
that it would allow for the provision of a variety of housing types as well as
affordable housing in a design that is both compatible in scale with surrounding
residential and commercial development.
2. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan as proposed to be amended by General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, in that they will provide a variety of housing types as well as affordable
housing in a design that is both compatible in scale with surrounding residential
and commercial development.
3. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of residential development
proposed in that the site can be engineered to allow for all required utilities to be
brought to the site, adequate ingress and egress can be obtained, and the site
can be provided with public and emergency services.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development at
17.2 units per acre, in that the project complies with all applicable development
standards and design requirements of the Municipal Code.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat because the Project site was previously graded and
an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act and determined that no significant
environmental impacts are likely to result from the development and occupancy
of the Project.
6. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not cause serious
public health problems, in that adequate sanitation is both feasible and required
as a condition of this development.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision, in that full access to and from Los
Angeles Avenue and Mission Bell Plaza shopping center easement has been
incorporated into the design of the Project.
14
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 15
Development Agreement:
1. The provisions of the development agreement are consistent with the General
Plan.
2. The provisions of the development agreement are consistent with Chapter 15.40
of the Municipal Code.
NOTICING
Public Notice for this meeting was given consistent with Chapter 17.44.070 of the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Publication. The notice of the public hearing was published in the Ventura County
Star on February 9, 2020.
2. Mailing. The notice of the public hearing was mailed on February 7, 2020, to
owners of real property, as identified on the latest adjusted Ventura County Tax
Assessor Roles, within one-thousand (1,000) feet of the exterior boundaries of
the assessor’s parcel(s) subject to the hearing.
3. Sign. One 32 square foot sign is to be placed on the street frontage by
February 7, 2020.
PROCESSING TIME LIMITS
Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the
Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California
Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13,
and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Because the application
includes legislative actions to amend the General Plan and the Zoning Code and to
enter into a Development Agreement, it is not subject to processing time limits.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City’s environmental review procedures adopted by resolution,
the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a
project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects
may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other
projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not
necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant
effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires
the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts.
15
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 16
Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project
would not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of
Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared.
For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration would
prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a
project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot
be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared.
The Community Development Director has supervised the preparation of an Initial Study
to assess the potential significant impacts of this Project. Based upon the Initial Study,
the Director has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the Project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment and prepared a
Negative Declaration for Planning Commission review and consideration before making
a recommendation on the Project.
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Attachment 5) were prepared and circulated
on July 2, 2019. Three comment letters were subsequently received: Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District; California Department of Transportation; and Ventura
County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection. These comments and Staff’s
response are provided in a Memorandum, which is also attached. Staff has reviewed
the letters received, consulted with the agencies providing comments, and determined
that no changes to the Project or Initial Study and Negative Declaration are warranted.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On October 22, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing regarding the
Green Island Villas project. During deliberations, the Planning Commission directed the
Applicant to revise the proposed design to address four specific comments (highlighted
below). These comments resulted in the continuance of the public hearing to
November 26, 2019 and again to the Special Meeting of December 17, 2019.
On January 14, 2020, the Applicant provided staff with updated plans and a detailed
response (Attachment 4) to each of the Planning Commission comments. The
comments provided by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2019, are summarized
below with a response indicating how each comment has been addressed on the
revised plans.
Comment 1: Provide suitable pedestrian connections and accessible pathways
within the Project between the residences and on-site amenities, adjacent
properties (including Mission Bell Plaza), and the public right-of-way.
Staff Response: The revised plans include three-foot wide stamped concrete
walkways throughout the interior of the Project, adjacent to the 25-foot wide drive
aisle. These paths connect off-site to Mission Bell Plaza and existing sidewalks
16
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 17
along Los Angeles Avenue. The updated site plan also provides sufficient area
for the required accessible pathways throughout the Project.
Comment 2: Provide additional enhanced landscaping along the building facades
facing interior drive aisles within the Project.
Staff Response: The Applicant provided a revised Landscape Plan and
elevations that include additional shrubs and vines on the corner of the units and
in planters between units, along the driveway. In addition, the Applicant will be
installing box planters on the second story patio railing. The revised Landscape
Plan (Sheet L1.0) also now distinguishes between landscaped areas that are
proposed to be maintained by the individual homeowners versus the
Homeowners Association. The Applicant had previously explained that these
trees were to be maintained by the HOA, however, the landscape plan identifies
these as privately maintained. In order to maintain the integrity and uniformity of
the screening of the proposed buildings from adjacent properties, Staff included a
condition of approval that requires the HOA to maintain the perimeter trees
shown on the landscape plan.
Comment 3: Swap the locations of the dog park and playground to provide better
supervision of children from the adjacent recreation building.
Staff Response: Per the Applicant, the dog park and playground are proposed to
remain in the same location as previously proposed. In this configuration, the
children’s playground is slightly larger than the dog park.
Comment 4: Provide additional off-street guest parking to serve the Project.
Staff Response: Per the Applicant, no additional off-street guest parking is
proposed to be provided. The Project provides the number of off-street parking
spaces required by the Municipal Code.
On January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval, with
Vice Chair Di Cecco dissenting and Commissioner Hamous recusing due to potential
conflict of interest. During deliberation, Vice Chair Di Cecco expressed continued
concerns regarding the safety of the walkways throughout the interior of the Project and
limited amount of landscaping. Chair Haverstock requested these comments be
conveyed to the City Council for consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the processing of the entitlements are reimbursable through
the developer deposit account with the City. All landscaping within the project will be
maintained by a private HOA and no streets within the project are publicly maintained.
17
Honorable City Council
02/19/2020 Regular Meeting
Page 18
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action is consistent with City Council Strategy 5, Goal 1, Objective 1 (5.1.1):
Present for the City Council consideration General Plan Amendment of Land Use
Element and accompanying entitlements for GPA No. 2005-02 (Chiu) and GPA No.
2014-01 (Kozar/Grand Moorpark/Sky Line 66, LLC) by December 30, 2019.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-____ adopting the Negative Declaration and
approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01; and
3. Introduce Ordinance No. ____, approving Zone Change No. 2014-01, for first
reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for March 4,
2020, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance;
and
4. Introduce Ordinance No. ____, approving Development Agreement No. 2014-03,
for first reading, waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for
March 4, 2020, for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the
ordinance; and
5. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-____ approving Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869.
Attachment 1: Project Exhibits
A. Location Map
B. Aerial Photograph
C. Project Plans
Attachment 2: 2019 Income Limits (Ventura County)
Attachment 3: Keyser Marston Associated, Inc. - Commercial Demand Study
Attachment 4: Applicant Response to Planning Commission Comments (December 9,
2019)
Attachment 5: Title Report
Attachment 6: Draft Resolution No. 2020-___ Adopting the Negative Declaration and
Approving GPA No. 2014-01
Attachment 7: Draft Ordinance No. ___ Adopting ZC No. 2014-01
Attachment 8: Draft Resolution No. 2020-____ Approving RPD Permit No. 2014-02
and VTTM No. 5869
Attachment 9: Draft Ordinance No. ___ Approving DA 2014-03
18
Location Map - 635 Los Angeles Avenue ATTACHMENT 1A
Project Site
19
Aerial Photograph - 635 Los Angeles Avenue ATTACHMENT 1B
Project Site
20
21ATTACHMENT 1C
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
2019 INCOME LIMITS (Ventura County)
Housing and Community Development Department (State)
HCD Income Limits
Median Income: $ 97,800
1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 persons 8 persons
Extremely Low $22,000 $25,150 $28,300 $31,400 $33,950 $36,450 $39,010 $43,430
Very Low Income $36,650 $41,850 $47,100 $52,300 $56,500 $60,700 $64,900 $69,050
Low Income $58,600 $67,000 $75,350 $83,700 $90,400 $97,100 $103,800 $110,500
Median Income $68,450 $78,250 $88,000 $97,800 $105,600 $113,450 $121,250 $129,100
Moderate Income $82,150 $93,900 $105,600 $117,350 $126,750 $136,150 $145,500 $154,900
ATTACHMENT 2
91
ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM 9.B.
CITY OF MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of '1.::_J-.?.01ftz__ __ _
ACTION: Ru·, I .. ,if. uL
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL f 4Lt=
AGENDA REPORT ev: ~ _A;_,_;;_e_, __ _
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable City Council --;i;2
David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director V j;
August 26, 2016 (CC Meeting of 917/2016)
SUBJECT: Consider Moorpark Commercial Market Overview
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2004, Allan D. Kotin and Associates, along with CB Richard Ellis Consulting,
prepared a retail market and land use feasibility study for the City to help understand
whether or not certain vacant properties planned for commercial uses should be
maintained for commercial uses or changed to a non-commercial planned land use.
The Retail Study concluded that the City had significant retail leakage that would require
several thousand square feet of new commercial development consuming
approximately 50 acres of land over the next 20 years. The Retail Study also revealed
that the City does not have a sufficient supply of large sites to accommodate large scale
retail development needed to capture the retail leakage.
' From the time of this study to 2008, four new shopping centers (Campus Plaza, Village
at Moorpark, Tuscany Square/The Grove at Moorpark, and LA Spring Center) were
completed, an existing shopping center (Mountain Meadows Plaza) was expanded, and
a stand-alone retail appliance showroom and retail building (Warehouse Discount
Center) were built, adding over 360,000 square feet of retail commercial space. This
additional retail space is approximately equivalent to the size of the Moorpark
Marketplace shopping center, which was completed in 2003. These new centers, along
with some of the previously established centers in Moorpark, have had noticeable
vacancies. In addition, an approved Home Depot project and two new approved office
developments on Los Angeles Avenue never were built. One of the office
developments that was not built was proposed by developer Grand Moorpark, after its
General Plan Amendment pre-screening application to build a residential townhouse
development was rejected, partially based on the conclusions of the Kotin study, which
suggested retaining the site for commercial use.
75
92
Honorable City Council
September 7, 2016
Page2
The retail industry has changed dramatically and rapidly since the Kotin Study in 2004.
Probably the most influential force shaping the retail industry today is the internet.
Internet sales have been increasing at a faster pace than brick and mortar sales, but
now internet sales are experiencing a shift. Consumers are beginning to shift away
from purchasing items on their laptop or desktop and are now buying via phone or
tablet. Consumers are increasingly using mobile phones and tablets for product
research and online purchasing. This shift to mobile devices is expected to continue in
the future and drive the growth of online sales as more consumers have convenient
access to the internet. Changes in the demand for commercial space warranted an
update to this commercial demand study that would assist in considering individual
projects as. well as updating the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Brick and
mortar stores have recognized these trends and offer rapid shipping of internet orders to
the stores, which, combined with automated inventory replacement, has substantially
reduced the amount of space needed for inventory. A number of stores, including
Staples, have chosen to focus on internet sales combined with quick delivery and have
closed hundreds of stores nationwide. This trend has also been felt locally.
On May 21, 2014, the City Council authorized the submittal of a General Plan
Amendment application for a proposed change in planned land use from General
Commercial to Very High Density Residential on 4.0 vacant acres west of the Mission
Bell Plaza shopping Center. This authorization was contingent upon the contribution of
$20,000.00 to a commercial demand study to help determine the appropriate land use
for this property. An application by Grand Moorpark for a 66-unit townhouse
condominium project was submitted on October 10, 2014, along with the contribution
toward the commercial demand study.
On April 15, 2015, the City Council authorized the submittal of a General Plan
Amendment application for a proposed change in planned land use from General
Commercial to Very High Density Residential on 7.8 acres currently used for
recreational vehicle storage and two homes at 4875 Spring Road and 384 Los Angeles
Avenue. This authorization also was contingent upon the contribution of $20,000.00
toward a commercial demand study. An application by Spring Road, LLC, for a 95-unit
townhouse condominium project was submitted on November 17, 2015, along with the
contribution toward the commercial demand study.
On July 1, 2015, the City Council authorized a budget appropriation of $40,000.00 to
enter into an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates to conduct a retail, office and
hotel market study of Moorpark, fully funded by the aforementioned development project
proposals. An agreement was executed on October 19, 2015 to prepare this study.
This study was completed in June, 2016, and, after review by staff, distributed to the
City Council on July 1, 2016. Two corrections have been made to this document and
are incorporated in the final attached document as follows:
76
93
Honorable City Council
September 7, 2016
Page 3
o On Page 11, SCAG Population figures have been updated to reflect the Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted in April 2016.
o On Page 27, a typo on the land costs in Point No. 4 was corrected.
The following is a brief summary of the conclusions of the Keyser Marston study. A
complete Executive Summary is included on Pages 3-9 of the attached report.
Retail
The study documented an excess of retail space in Moorpark, with an estimated
280,000 square feet currently vacant. Given the highly competitive regional and
subregional markets with two substantially larger cities bracketing Moorpark and
drawing sales to Moorpark residents, the increase in e-commerce, and the limited
population growth potential within Moorpark, the study projects that demand for retail
uses can be accommodated within this existing vacant retail space over the next 20
years. The study also indicates that the City may wish to consider converting some. of
the less-than-optimal commercial sites to alternative uses to promote a healthier retail
environment.
Office
Given current space allocation trends, high vacancy rates in the market area, low
population and limited employment base, opportunities for office development are likely
limited to institutional or smaller professional firms.
Industrial
The regional and subregional market for industrial space is strong with low vacancy
rates and high absorption rates. Much of the space is being developed for logistics
(warehousing) tenants, where employee counts are limited.
Hotel
The demand analysis indicates a healthy amount of hotel potential in the Simi
Valley/Moorpark market area with the Moorpark Fairfield Inn and a planned Simi Valley
Hampton Inn taking up a good share of the near to mid-term demand.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
Attachment: City of Moorpark Market Overview, Keyser Marston Associates,
August 26, 2016
77
94
ADVISORS lN:
REAL ES'rA.ffi
REDEVELOPMENT
AFFORDAfl!.E 1-kxJsJNO
&:oNoMlc Oi:V!ll.OPMENT
SA/'I l'lt.A.NCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TlMmlfv C. KEu v
KATE EARLE FUNK
DERBIE M. KERN
REED T. KAWAHARA
DA YID IJcEZEW..
Los ANGELES
KA.nn.EEN K, HF.AD
IAMllS A. RAHE
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES.
ADVISORS IN rUBLIC/rRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVfLOrMENT
MEMORANDUM
David Bobardt, Community Development Director
City of Moorpark
Kevin Engstrom
James Rabe
August 26, 2016
City of Moorpark Market Overvi.ew
GRooo., 0 · Soo-Hoo INTRODUCTION
KEVIN E. EoomtOM
IULIH L. RcMEY
SA.NDn!:GO
PAULC. MARRA
Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) prepared a market
analysis for the City of Moorpark (City). The analysis estimated the magnitude of the
existing commercial development in the City and summarized the market conditions for
the City, estimating demand for retail, office, industrial and hotel development. The main
sections of the analysis are summarized below:
1. Socio-Economic Characteristics1 -KMA evaluated the socio-economic
characteristics of the three, five and ten-mile market area, City and Ventura
County (County). Reviewing the socio-economic characteristics of the market
area residents is necessary for the evaluation of potential market opportunities.
2. Employment and Business -Provides a summary of existing employment and
businesses.
3. Commercial lnventorv -Working with the City, KMA estimated the amount of
commercial development in the City.
1 Socio-Economic characteristics include demographic and economic traits (e.g. population, race,
age, education levels, incQme levels etc.) of market area ·residents.
500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480 ",,.-LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 ,.-PHONE: 213622 8095 ,.-FAX: 213 622 5204
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM
1604016 .MOOR .KEE:errvn
16037.001.001 78
95
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page2
4. Retail Overview -lnclude.s data from regional brokerage houses, current asking
rents, estimates of current retail productivity levels, and estimates of the likely
supportable retail.
5. Office Overview -This analysis includes data from regional brokerage houses,
current asking rents and market demand projections to assess potential
opportunities.
6. Industrial Overview -This analysis includes data from regional brokerage
houses, current asking rents and market demand projections to assess potential
opportunities.
7. Lodging Overview -This analysis includes an evaluation of average daily rates,
occupancy an.d demand in the region.
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.00'l.001
79
96
To: Dav id Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The KMA analysis is summariz ed below:
August 26 , 2016
Page 3
1. Socio Economic Characteristics -The three, five and ten -mile market area
population is low; however, both the income levels and education levels are
much higher than the County average. 2
2 . Employment and Businesses -Employment has steadily increased in Ventura
County since 2010 _ With in the market area , there is a concentration of Finance
and Insurance employment, which is good for office demand; however, there are
actually fewer businesses. In addition , there is a relatively small share of Re al
Estate and Professional businesses in the City, which are both office users.
3 . Commercial Inventory -Within the C ity, approximately 16% of the commercial
space is vacant. In addition , many centers are relying on non -retail , institutional
and service related tenants to fill a major share of their space ( 18% of the
commercial space). Further, nearly one third of the centers that are i n good
condition and have good locations still have high vacancies. Finally, office
development in the City is limited to campus/business park developments, with
smaller professional and service related office space found throughout the
commercial centers.
4 . Retail -Brokers active in the City indicate an excess of commercial space in the
community. The current high vacancy rates, moderate rental rates and low
productivity levels further substantiate the belief that the City's retail market is
soft. The surplus/leakage analysis and review of retail productivity levels (sales
per square foot) indicates a challenging environment, as existing development in
surrounding jurisdictions appears to capture local and reg ional demand. In
addition, national retail trends indicate that on-line shopping will continue to
impact the brick and mortar space requirements of retailers . The projections
herein reflect a relatively conservative impact of this phenomenon; however, if
the current growth rate for on-line sales continues, then the impact on brick and
mortar retail could be very significant. Citywide demand projections indicate
some potential from community residents for local serving apparel stores ,
foodservice and food & beverage stores .
5. Office -The office market is still recovering from the recession , as vacancy rates
and rents are moving off their 2010-2012 levels and absorption is still relatively
2 The market area is measured from the intersection of Moorpark Avenue at Los A ngeles Avenue .
1604016.MOOR.KEE·emm
16037 .001.001
80
97
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark llJlarket Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page4
slow; therefore, limited office develop·ment has occurred in Ventura County. In
addition, vacancy rates in the Simi Valley/Moorpark market area are higher than
the County and the City has a small population and employment base, these
factors will all inhibrt demand. In addition to these local factors, current trends in
the office industry indicate the amount of space required by businesses on a per
employee basis is decreasing. Whereas historical precedent saw typical space
allocations of 250 square feet per employee, current space allocations now range
from 175 to 200 square feet per employee. Technology and improving
connectivity, which allow employees to work off-site are a significant factor
promoting this reduction.
6. Industrial -The Southern California industrial market is very healthy. Within
Ventura County, the market is strong, with an average vacancy rate of 5.6% and
high absorption levels. In particular, the Simi Valley/Moorpark market area is
very healthy with vacancy rates (5.3%) that are lower than the County and strong
absorption (377,000 square feet), which accounts for 50% of the County total.
Regional trend.s indicate a healthy long-term industrial market especially for uses
Y1ith smaller offices, with much of the space is being developed for logistics
tenants, which generate limited employee counts. Overall, market demand is
likely to be strong in the near-to mid-term.
7. Hotel -Historically, hotels are the most volatile land use, as rooms are "rented"
on a nightly basis. This trend will continue in the future, as fluctuations in
employment, the economy, and natural/man-made disasters can all have a
significant influence on the hotel industry. Notwithstanding these issues, the
h()tel market in Southern California is healthy, having improved significantly over
the past five years. The demand analysis indicates a healthy amount of hotel·
potential in the Simi Valley/Moorpark market area over the next 20 years. In
addition, the nearby Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills market area is performing very
well. Over the past five years, the Simi Valley/Moorpark market area has not
seen an increase in hotel room supply. Given the healthy market conditions, a
new Hampton Inn & Suites is planned for Simi Valley and a 108-room Fairfield
Hotel is planned for Moorpark. If these projects proceed, they will account for a
good share of the near to mid-term demand.
The key implications of the market analysis are summarized below:
1. The higher income and education levels of City residents are very attractive to
retailers; however, the low number of households will offset these attributes,
which limits opportunities.
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
81
98
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 5
2. The City is located in a highly competitive Southern California market area. As
such, credit tenants have many choices when making decisions on sites, and the
low population densities will hamper the City's attractiveness. This is likely to
remain the case, even if regional traffic along Los Angeles Avenue continues to
grow.
3. Typical retail mark.et areas will extend from one to five miles depending on the
establishment type; however, the te.n-mile regional market area and opportunities
therein, will still impact site selection decisions.
4. The City exists in a highly competitive market area, as it is bracketed by
Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, which are home to strong, regional retail
centers. These jurisdictions are capturing and/or are well suited to capture
demand from City residents due to agglomeration principles (tenants which
attract similar patrons cluster together) and stronger locations. This
phenomenon is already occurring with apparel stores, which show a significant
amount of demand for the City, but a surplus of sales in the ten-mile market area.
5. In recent years, e-commerce sales have risen nationally at a rate substantially
faster than shopping center sales. The Urban Land lnstiMe and International
Council of Shopping Centers indicate this trend will continue, with traditional
retailers expanding and focusing on their on-line potential. Due to these factors,
publications indicate that "shopping online will make retail space dwindle" as on-
line sales are projected to approach 30% of total retail sales by 2030. 3 These
changes will particularly impact areas that are not considered prime retail
locations.
6. · The surplus/leakage analysis for the City shows potential demand for 220,000
square feet of retail. However, this demand is spread across all establishment
types, so most opportunities are limited to smaller, locally serving retailers.
Further, competition in the five-mile market area is already absorbing much of
this demand, particularly for home furnishings/electronic/appliance stores,
building materials stores, sporting goods/hobby stores, general merchandise and
miscellaneous retailers. When the market area capture of these tenant types is
considered, the potential d.emand is reduced to 140,000 square feet. At 140,000
to 220,000 square feet, the magnitude of this demand is less than the current
amount of vacant space in the City.
3 Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2016 and USAA's E-Commerr:e: Implications for Retail Real
Estate. ·
1604016 MOOR.KEE·errm
16037.001.001
82
99
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page6
7. Population and household growth projections for the market area do not indicate
significant growth opportunities. Based on current projections, retail demand
through 2035 totals 455,000 square feet; however, much of this demand is
currently being absorbed in the market area. In fact, the current surplus of sales
in the five-mile market area for ho.me furnishings & appliance stores, building
materi.als stores and other/m.iscellaneous retail is greater than the demand
projected for the City through 2035. When the market area performance for
these establishment types is considered, the supported retail is only 310,000
square feet. Assuming the City captures a share of this demand consistent with
current levels, then the potential supported development is approximately
200,000 square feet.4 Assuming the range of retail demand estimated in the
sensitivity test (374,000 to 589,000 square feet), the supported retail would be
165,000 to 275,000 square feet.
8. Within the City, approximately 280,000 square feet of commercial space is
vacant, so the current amount of vacant space exceeds current demand and the
twenty-year demand projections.
9. The City may consider the potential conversion of commercial to alternative land
uses. This could promote a healthier retail environment in those areas that are
more successful. The conversion of underperforming centers to mixed use could
benefit the City by generating more residents, while at the same time allowing
land owners to reposition underperforming retail. The conversion to single use
residential projects would increase the market area buying power.
10. Undeveloped land with freeway visibility may provide superior long-term retail
opportunities than currently developed parcels along secondary and tertiary
roads. For instance, the twelve acres south of Moorpark Marketplace may
provide an opportunity for new retail development, particularly if a big box retailer
opportunity presents itself in the future. Given the current vacancy rates, long-
term demand and potential new development opportunities, the City could
consider rezoning between 20 and 30 acres of commercial to alternative uses
(up to 40 acres may make sense if the City rezones a significant share of this
land to mixed-use). At a typical floor area ratio (building area divided by land
area) of .25, this would equate to a potential loss of 218,000 to 327,000 square
feet of existing or future commercial. Opportunities for this conversion could
include retail sites along Spring Road, Moorpark Avenue, commercial centers
north of Highway 118 (e.g. Varsity Square Plaza) and mid-block locations along
4 This is particularly true for apparel stores, as the ten-mile market area shows a significant
surplus of these sales.
1604016.MOORKEE:emm
16037.001.001
83
100
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 7
Los Angeles Avenue. For all of these locations, and particularly those along Los
Angeles Avenue, the City should consider the potential for mixed use
development. For instance, Mission Bell Plaza is a large commercial center with
significant vacancies, by allowing residential development on the Site, the
possibility may exist for an attractive redesign of the property that incorporates
modern commercial development and residential.
11. If the City does proceed to re-entitle commercial property, it should capture a
share of the value enhancements (value capture) in the form of community
benefits. By changing the zoning of selected commercial properties, the City will
likely increase their underlying land values. The City can capture a share of this
value by requesting the developer provide community benefits (e.g. parking, site
improvements, affordable housing, open space, etc.)
12. It will be very difficult for the City to compete for large-scale national tenants
given its small population base and strong competition in the cities of Simi Valley
and Thousand Oaks. Understanding this, the City should consider focusing on
local and regional commercial tenants, as there is still demand for certain types
of uses (e.g. apparel store.sand food service).
13. Given the lack of private investment in High Street over the past thirty years, the
City could consider exploring methods for stimulating healthy commercial along
this corridor, as this area could provide an opportunity for local and regional
commercial tenants. Some potential methods to activate the area include:
a. Institutional investment -For instance, a new public library can serve as a
daytime focal point in a historic core/downtown, as has been done with
the new post office, fire station and renovated High Street Arts Center.
b. Entertainment anchor - A live action theater or art house cinema can
draw patrons to the area in the evening and on weekends.
c. Transit oriented development -The possibility exists for a small amount
of service development adjacent to the Metrolink Station. Further,
residential transit oriented development is becoming very popular in
Southern California.
d. Municipal programs -Business improvement district formation,
development standards that take into consideration remaining
development potential (e.g. reduced parking requirements near the transit
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emrn
16037.001.001
84
101
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorparl<
Subject: City of Moorparl< Marl<et Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page8
station), tenant improvement loan programs and fa~de improvement
programs can be utilized to maintain and update the area.
e. Marketing and activities -Activating the area with events such as a
farmer's marl<et, car show or other thematic activity can introduce patrons
to the area. In addition, way-finding and promotional activities can
highlight the area.
14. Given current space allocation trends, high vacancy rates in the market area, a
low population density and a limited employment base in the City, new office
development in the City will likely be limited to institutional uses and/or smaller
professional finns. The tenants of this space will appreciate the appeal of
Moorparl< and the surrounding environs. The smaller professional finns will also
look for space in commercial centers.
15. The market opportunities for office, industrial and hotels in Moorpark will be
strongly influenced by competitive sites in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks.
16. According to the ICSC, office/business parl< worl<e.rs spending accounts for less
than 2% of national retail sales. The City currently has 11,800 employees,
assuming national trends, approximately 20% of these employees are office
related (2,400 employees). The expenditures of these employees likely range
from $1 O million to $15 million annually. Given the magnitude of these
expenditures, most retailers rely on marl<et area residents for long-term success,
with daytime employment providing an assist towards profitability.
17. Larger scale office demand is likely to be driven by factors outside of normal
market conditions (employment growth), as companies will sometimes choose
locations based on business decisions (e.g. proximity to decision makers'
residences) and not marl<et factors. Further, companies currently in the City may
require additional space as their business improves.
18. Demand factors are strong for industrial land uses, particularly for sites offering
easy freeway access and adjacency.
19. The successful development of large scale employment generating projects (e.g.
the 594,000 square foot motion picture studio project on Los Angeles Avenue)
can benefit local retailers as employees will make expenditures near work.
However, success for the vast majority of retailers relies on demand from the
local population base with daytime employment providing an assist towards
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037 001 001
85
102
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 9
profitability. Employment generated by these large projects could have a healthy
impact on hotel room demand in the City.
20. Given the modest average daily rate (ADR) in the Simi Valley/Moorpark market
area, hotel demand from leisure, corporate and event attendees is likely to
continue being focused on select service and/or extended stay hotels.
Ultimately, the modest RevPAR (Revenue per Available Room) may make it
challenging for a hotel to be financially feasible, even though it has market
feasibility. If hotel ADRs do continue to climb, freeway adjacent parcels would be
the preferred location for this type of hotel. For instance, the site currently leased
by The Home Depot south of the Moorpark Marketplace may provide an
opportunity for this type of use.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The socio-economic characteristics of the market area, City and County are shown in
Tables 1 -4. The market area and City boundaries are shown in Figure 1. The key
variables for the market area are summarized below:
1. The market area is characterized by relatively low population densities, when
compared to Los Angeles County (2, 100 persons per square mile) and Orange
County (3,200 persons per square mile). 5
Population Density
(People/Square Mile)
3-Mile Ring 1,370
5-Mile Ring 1,020
10-Mile Ring 1, 150
Moorpark 2,870
Ventura County 460
2. The market area population is comprised of slightly larger households.
3. The median household income level in the City and market area is relatively very
high.
5 The market area is defined from the intersection of Moorpark Avenue at Los Angeles Avenue.
1604015.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037_001_001
86
103
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 10
Median Household
Income
3-M ile R ing
5-M ile R ing
10-Mile Ring
Moorpark
Ventura County
$97,800
$96,800
$89 ,200
$95 ,900
$73 ,000
4 . Within the market area and C ity, over 23 % of the households earn incomes over
$150,000 , which is much higher than the County .
Household Income Distribution
Under $25 ,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $150,000+
511 3 Mile Ring •S M ile Ring 01 0 Mile Ri ng D Moorpari( 11Ventura County J
5. The age distribution in the market area and City are consistent with the County.
The median age in the City is 36 years , which is slightly lower than the County
average of 37 years
6 . Market area and City residents are higher educated than the County , with over
37% having graduated from college compared to 31 % in the County.
7 . Growth projections for the market area are moderate and should be consistent
with the County through 2019.
3-Mile Ring
5-Mile Ring
10-Mile R ing
Moorpark
Ventura Count y
Household Growth Projections
Change
2015 2020 Total Percent
11,814 12,300
26,451 27,449
123,788 128,658
10,836 11 ,292
275,297 285 ,729
486
998
4 ,870
456
10,432
4 .1%
3.8%
3.9%
4 .2%
3.8%
160401 6.MOOR.KE E.emm
• 16037.001 00 1
8 7
104
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 11
8. Growth projections for the City indicate a total of 8,200 persons through 2040,
which equates to a .8% compound annual growth rate (CAAG). This is slightly
higher than the County average of .5%.
SCAG Population Projections
2012-20406
Compound
Annual
Growth Gross
Camarillo Ctty 0.7% 13,600
Fillmore Ctty 0.5% 3,000
Moorpark City 0.8% 8,200
Ojai Ctty 0.4% 900
Oxnard Ctty 0.6% 37,200
Port Hueneme Ctty 0.1% 600
San Buenaventura City 0.6% 18,600
Santa Paula Ctty 1.0% 9,800
Simi Valley Ctty 0.5% 17,300
Thousand Oaks Ctty 0.1% 3,900
Unincorporated 0.6% 16;900
Ventura County 0.5% 130,000
The socio-economic makeup of the market area will have an impact on retail
opportunities. In particular, retailers focus on population density, income levels and
education levels. The market area population is not very large; however, both the
income !eve.ls and education levels are much higher than the County average. The
higher income and education levels are very attractive to retailers; however, the low
number of households will limit opportunities.
EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESSES
Tables 5 - 7 show the employment and business mix for the market area and County.
1. As shown in Tabl.e 5, employment in Ventura County increased at a steady rate
after the 2011 (post-recession).
2. Within the City, there is a concentration of employment and businesses in the
following industries (Tables 6 and 7):
a. Construction
b. Manufacturing
6 Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and KMA
1604016.MOQR_KEE:elTITl
16037.001.001
88
105
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
c. Wholesale trade
d. Administrative/support services
e. Educational services
f. Finance and insurance (employment only)
August 26, 2016
Page 12
The concentration of Finance and Insurance employment is good for office demand;
however, there are actually fewer businesses. In addition, there is a smaller share of
Real Estate and Professional businesses in the City, which are both office users.
COMMERCIAL INVENTORY
Working with maps provided by the City, KMA prepared an inventory study of the
commercially zoned space in Moorpark, which is shown in Figure 1. The results
summarized below are estimates of square footage based on an interpretation of
satellite imagery via geographic information systems (GIS) software. The results of this
analysis were then reviewed through site visits to verify current conditions. 7
1. As shown in Figure 2 and summarized below, the City has approximately 1.8
million square feet of commercial space. Approximately 16% of the total space
is vacant, 283,000 square feet.
City Commercial Space
Occupied Commercial Space
Vacant Commercial Space
Commercial Space Total
Total
1,498,600
282.900
1,780,500
Share
84.0%
16.0%
100.0%
2. As shown in Figure 3 and summarized below, over one-third of the commercial
building space in the City is either vacant or occupied by institutional, service or
non-retail users. At this level, these tenants/vacancies account for a significant
share of the citywide total. Home furnishings, appliance and building materials
stores account for the greatest share of the retailers (11.2%), followed by food
service and drinking places (10.7%) and miscellaneous store retailers (e.g.
florists, sporting good, hobby stores, etc.) at 10.3%.
7 As such, these results reflect an orde! of magnitude estimate for the building square footage.
1604016.MOOR.KEE.emm
16037.001.001
89
106
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 13
Distribution of Commercial Space by Type of Establishment
Establishment Type Total Share
Home Furnishings, Appliances & Building Materials 199,600 11.2%
Food Service & Drinking Places 191,400 10.7%
Miscellaneous Store Retailers 184,000 10.3%
Food & Beverage Store 163,100 9.2%
General Merchandise 152,900 8.6%
Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 144,700 8.1%
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 133,900 7.5%
Gasoline Station 13, 100 0.7%
Non-Retail/Institution/Service/Other 315,000 17.7%
Vacant 282 900 15.9%
Total 1,780,500 100.0%
3. Shown in Figure 4 and summarized below is the scope of the major commercial
centers in the City. A brief description of the centers exceeding 50,000 square
feet follows.•
Distribution of Commercial Space by Major Center
Establishment Type Total Share
Moorpark Marketplace 337,800 19.0%
Mission Bell Plaza 240,600 13.5%
Moorpark Town Center 139,200 7.8%
The Village @ Moorpark 128,700 7.2%
Vons Center 106,700 6.0%
Moorpark Plaza Shopping Center 78,800 4.4%
Tuscany Square Shopping Center 73,800 4.1%
High Street Corridor 64,200 3.6%
Moorpark Campus Plaza 50,200 2.8%
LA Spring Shopping Center 35,200 2.0%
Village Retail Shop.ping Center 31,800 1.8%
Gateway Plaza 28,200 1.6%
Varsijy Park Plaza 21,800 1.2%
Miscellaneous Retail 9 443 500 24.9%
Total 1,780,500 100.0%
a. Moorpark Marketplace -Located on Los Angeles and State Route 23,
this is the largest center in the City with nearly 340,000 square feet of
8 The building area of some centers is owned by multiple enttties; consequently, the square
footage estimates may not correspond directly to published sources.
9 Includes the War_ehouse Discount Center, which is approximately one-quarter of this space.
1604016.MOOR.KEE·emm
16037.CX>1.001
90
107
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark.
Subject: City of Moorpark. Mark.et Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 14
leasable area. This high quality, community retail center with limited
vacancies is anchored by Target, Kohl's and T J Maxx.
b. Mission Bell Plaza -Located at the intersection of Park Lane and Los
Angeles Avenue, this moderate quality, neighborhood retail center has
significant vacancies accounting for over 50% of the rentable area.
c. Moorpark. Town Center -Located on Los Angeles at Moorpark Avenue,
this is a large, moderate quality, neighborhood center, anchored by
Ralph's, CVS and Goodwill. The center has a modest vacancy rate, wi_th
approximately 25% of the space occupied by non-retail (realty firm, bank,
etc.) and service (urgent care, wellness center, optometry, etc.) tenants.
d. The Village @ Moorpark. -This newer, neighborhood center is located at
the intersection of Miller Parkway and Los Angeles. While the center is in
good condition, it has significant vacancies, which exceed one-third of its
129,000 square feet. In addition, Dick's Sporting Goods indicates it will
be leaving the center in 2017.
e. Vons Center -Located at the intersection of Tierra Rejada and Mountain
Trail, this is a small scale neighborhood shopping center. While the
center is anchored by Vons, over one-third of the tenants are non-retail,
institutional or service establishments.
f. Moorpark Plaza Shopping Center -This moderate quality strip center is
occupied by a number of services (e.g. dentistry, orthodontists), Wood
Ranch BBQ & Grill and other food service establishments.
g. Tuscany Square Shopping Center -This newer, neighborhood center is
located at the intersection of Moorpark. Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue.
The center has approximately 74,000 square feet and is currently
anchored by Walgreen's. The center is approximately one third vacant,
with the largest space previously occupied by Fresh & Easy.
h. High Street 10-Approximately 64,000 square feet of eclectic, older
commercial space is located along and adjacent to High Street in
downtown Moorpark. The commercial has moderate vacancies, with
approximately one-quarter of the space occupied by non-retail or service
related users.
10 Area bounded by High Street, Moorpark Avenue, Charles Street and Spring Road.
1604016 MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
91
108
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpar1<
Subject: City of Moorpar1< Mar1<et Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 15
i. Moorpar1< Campus Plaza -Located near the Community College, this
moderate quality, unanchored strip center is occupied by a number of
office and food service establishments. Immediately adjacent to the
center is a gas station and McDonald's. The center has relatively high
vacancies.
4. Figure 5 shows the office related space in the City; however. there are limited to
no Class A office buildings. Instead, the majority of office space users are
located in business park/campus developments along Princeton Avenue and Los
Angeles Avenue. Sample tenant types include aerospace firms, electronics
manufacturers, real estate services, lenders and software companies. Within the
City, there is not a significant concentration of typical office using industries such
as real estate, professional services, and information firms. In addition, small
professional offices are located throughout the City's commercial centers. Office
vacancy rates in the mar1<et area exceed 20%.
Some key findings of the inventory study include:
• Approximately 16% of the commercial space in the City is vacant.
• Many centers are relying on non-retail, institutional and service related tenants to
fill a healthy share of their space.
• Centers that have good locations and are in good condition still have high
vacancies.
• Anchor spaces in some centers are vacant.
• Office development in the City is limited to campus/business par1< developments.
RETAIL OVERVIEW
The information compiled for the retail overview can be summarized as follows:
1. As shown in Table 8, the per capita retail sales are lower in the City ($7,600)
than the County ($10,900) and the State ($10,600). In particular, citywide sales
are particularly weak for:
a. Motor vehicles
b. Building materials
c. Clothing stores
1604016.MOOR.KEE-emm
16037.001,001
92
109
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 16
2. As shown in Table 9, the average sales per establishment is lower in the City
when compared to the County and State averages.
3. Tables 10 and 11 summarize the current and projected retail surplus and leakage
for the City of Moorpark. As shown in the Table 11 , the City could support
approximately 220,000 square feet currently and 491,000 square feet through
2035. However, it is important to note a number of factors that influence these
projections:
a. This demand would need to fill existing retail prior to new development
occurring. Typically, vacancy rates would need to be approximately 5 %
for interest in new development to occur.
b . E-commerce will have a growing impact on retail sales in Moorpark and
the nation. In recent years, e-commerce sales have risen nationally at a
rate substantially faster than shopping center sales. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, during the fourth quarter of 2015, e-commerce sales in
the U.S. totaled $89.5 billion, or 7.5% of total U .S. retail sales. This
represented an extremely robust 15.1 % year-over-year growth in e-
commerce sales, as compared to a nominal 1.4% increase in total retail
sales during the same time period. According to the Emerging Trends in
Real Estate, "shopping online will make retail space dwindle" as many
retailers are reduced space and are expanding their on-line offerings. 11
Further, the Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping
Centers indicate the same, with traditional retailers expanding and
focusing on their on-line potential. According to the USAA Real Estate
Company's E-commerce: Implications for Retail Real Estate, on-line
retail sales will account for 30% of total retail sales by 2030. To reflect
this change in the long-term projections, KMA assumed the share of on-
line retail demand for the non-food establishment types would increase
5 .0% annually, to approximately 20% of sales.12
c. The real estate needs of tenant types vary significantly. For instance,
many general merchandise and building improvement stores are
approximately 100,000 square feet (e .g. Target, Costco, Nordstrom's,
The Home Depot, etc.), so the demand shown ~ere is insufficient to
support them.
11 Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2016
12 Forrester Research Inc. estimates on-line sales will increase 9.3% annually through 2020.
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001 .001
93
110
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 17
d. Retail trade areas are not determined by City boundaries and are instead
created by distance (miles or driving). As shown in Tables 12 and 13, the
five-mile market area currently has a surplus of home furnishings &
appliances, building materials & garden equipment stores and
miscellaneous stores, which will limit opportunities for this type of space
in the City.
e. The projections assume the existing tenants in the City are operating at
acceptable productivity levels; however, the sales per square foot for
every establishment type in the City is lower than national averages. As
such, existing retailers could potentially absorb a share of this demand.
Projected Retail Demand Through 2035 13
Establishment Type
Home Furnishings & Appliances
Building Material & Garden Equipment
Food & Beverage Stores
Clothing & Clothing Accessories
General Merchandise Stores
Food Services & Drinking Places
Other Retail Group
Retail Stores Total
Demand (SF)
25,100
72,600
86,300
101,200
48,100
74,500
47 ODO
454,800
4. In addition to the commercial supported by residents, KMA also evaluated the
potential retail supported by office/business park workers. According to the
International Council of Shopping Centers -Office-Worker Retail Spending in
Digital Age, the spending of these workers accounts for less than 2% of national
retail sales. Food service (restaurants and food stores) expenditures account for
approximately 10% to 15% of worker spending; however, on-line sales (15%)
and transportation related expenses (nearly 20%) account for the greatest share
of these expenditures. 14 The balance of the retail expenditures (approximately
50% of the total) are spent in department stores, warehouse stores, drug stores,
electronic stores, personal care stores and other establishment types. Assuming
these workers account for 20% of the Moorpark work1orce, which is the national
average, citywide employees would generate approximately $10 million to $15
million of retail sales annually. Given the magnitude of these expenditures, most
13 Source: SBE and KMA
14 Over 50% of workers do not make any expenditures near their place of work.
1604016 MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
94
111
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26 , 2016
Page 18
retailers rely on market area residents for long-term success , with daytime
employment providing an assist towards profitability.
5. As shown in Tables 12 and 13 , the 10-mile market area is leaking approximately
900,000 square feet of demand . Approximately 75% of this demand is
generated by Food and Beverage and Health & Personal Care stores, which
typically only have only a one-to two-mile trade area . Further the 10-mile market
area shows a surplus of home furnishings & appliances , building materials &
garden equipment stores and apparel stores .
Market Area Retail Demand15
3 -M ile 5-M iles 10 -Miles
Home Furnishings/Electronic/Appliances 0 0 0
Building Material, Garden Equip Stores 0 0 0
Food and Beverage Stores 123,269 307 ,846 494,741
Health and Perso nal C are Stores 47,578 119,6 19 204 ,3 11
Clothing and Clothin g Accessories Stores 78,597 190,674 0
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, M usic Stores 0 5,443 91 ,206
General Merchandise Stores 101 ,931 18,568 54 ,463
Miscellaneous Store Retailers 0 0 87 , 109
Foodservice and Drinking Places Q 118,2Q2 Q
Total (Square Feet) 351,376 761 ,052 931,829
6 . As shown in Table 14, the current asking rents in the market area range from
$11 .40 to $35.40 per square foot ($.95 to $2 .95 monthly), with an average of
$17:00 per square foot ($1 .40 monthly). These rents are relatively low, as the
average rent would not be able to support the cost of new reta il development.
7 . Working with the City and Hdl, KMA reviewed the productivity level of
establishments in the City . The sales per square foot for the City's
establishments were then compared to national averages. The review indicates
that very few, if any, reta il establishments (e .g . apparel , general merchandise ,
miscellaneous stores , home furnish ings , etc.) in the City are outperforming
national and/or regional averages , with many lower than typical. For restaurants .
a handful of operators are generating very healthy sa les , w ith the majority of the
establishments generating typical sales volumes. As a cross-check, KMA also
estimated productivity levels using the State Board of Equalization sales by
establishment type. Th is review corroborated the Hdl data, indicating low
productivity levels for most establishment types . Overall , the low productivity
levels indicate existing retailers could absorb a share of the estimated 455,000
1s Source: Claritas and KMA
1604016 MOOR.KE E:envn
16037.001.001
95
112
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 19
square feet of long-term demand. Ultimately, this data indicates Moorpark
residents are likely meeting their retail needs in other jurisdictions by shopping at
preferred tenants and taking advantage of agglomeration principles.
8. KMA prepared a sensitivity test of the retail demand projections. The analysis
considered both an increase in productivity by existing establishments and an
increase in citywide households. Assuming existing retailers increase sales 15%
by capturing more of resident expenditures, then citywide demand would be
approximately 374,000 square feet over the next 20 years. Assuming, a 15%
increase in citywide household formation over the next 20 years then the retail
demand would total 589,000 square feet.
9. KMA also contacted a number of retail brokers that are active in the market area.
The salient points from these conversations are provided below:
a. Many of the brokers indicated there is too much retail development in the
City. Further, the belief exists that some of this retail should be
considered excess and converted to residential, which is in high demand.
New residential development would benefit the remaining retail centers by
increasing the number of households in the City (greater buying power).
b. Overall vacancy rates in the City are believed to be very high, with
estimates ranging from 10% to 20%. Vacancy rates in the more
successful shopping centers, of which there is a limited number, are
estimated to be 5% or less.
c. Rents range considerably with much of the space ranging from $1.00 to
$2.00 per square foot.
d. There are limited opportunities for big box retailers because the
population in the market area is so low.
e. Demand may exist for entrepreneurial retail (e.g. "m.om and pop") stores.
f. Opportunities and demand are very limited for the Old To\Yn/High Street
area, as retailers would prefer a location on Los Angeles Avenue.
10. According to City Staff, the City lost Km~rt, SavOn, Linens N Things, Staples, Big
Lots, Do It Center, Fresh n Easy, Albertson's and Radio Shack since 2002. In
addition, Dick's Sporting Goods is planning on leaving the City in 2017. Reasons
for these departures vary, including: bankruptcies, corporate retrenchment and/or
1604016.MOOR.KEE·emm
16037.001.001
96
113
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 20
poor performance of the Moorpark establishment. These retailers occupied a
significant amount of commercial space, which has been difficult for brokers to fill
given the previously discussed reasons.
Based the preceding research, the implications for the key establishment types are
summarized below:
1. Home Furnishings and Appliances -The City is projected to support a minimal
amount of home furnishings. home goods, appliances and electronic stores
(25,000 square feet) through 2035. In addition. the larger market area currently
shows a surplus of sales. Given these factors. limited opportunities for this type
of retail likely exist in the near-to mid-term.
2. Building Materials and Garden Equipment -The City is projected to support
approximately 73,000 square feet of this type of retail through 2035. However,
the market area currently shows a surplus of this type of retail. This would
indicate Moorpark residents are meeting their shopping needs outside of the City
boundaries. Given the existing market area competition, opportunities for this
type of retail may exist in the near-to mid-term for smaller establishments (e.g.
Orchard Supply Hardware. Ace Hardware, etc.). Larger format home
improvement stores like Home Depot and Lowe's are typically around 100,000
square feet. Demand from City residents would not reach this threshold during
the projection period.
3. Food and Beverage Stores -The City is projected to support approximately
86,000 square feet of this type of retail through 2035. While the market area for
these retailers is typically smaller (one to two miles), there is also demand in the
greater market area. Current demand in the City is only 32,000 square feet,
which is lower than the typical store format size for many food stores
(approximately 40.000 square feet); however. sufficient demand may exist for a
food store in the near-to mid-term. Given the high income and education levels
of City residents, potential tenants could include Pavilions, Whole Foods.
Sproul's, BevMo, Total Wine and other similar establishments; however, the low
population base may cause these retailers to select sites in nearby cities.
4. Apparel Stores -The City is projected to support approximately 101,000 square
feet of this type of retail through 2035. In addition, there is demand in the
immediate market. However. the larger ten-mile market area shows a surplus of
this type of retail, as many apparel stores are located in The Oaks and The Simi
Valley Town Center. This level of supply in the market area will likely limit
apparel opportunities in Moorpark to local serving establishments. These
1604016.MOORKEE:ermi
1.6037.001.001
97
114
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 21
establishments would likely include locally owned boutiques. These
establishments are likely to be smaller in nature and could fill a modest amount
of in-line space in existing shopping centers and/or be potentially viable along
High Street. However, there are many challenges for small boutique businesses,
so long-term success is not guaranteed for many of these establishments. Ross
Dress for Less and Marshall's have outlets in nearby cities, so potential may exist
for these retailers. These retailers are similar to T J Maxx, which is already in the
City, and would require approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of space.
These retailers may be a viable alternative for currently vacant buildings along
Los Angeles Avenue.
5. General Merchandise Stores -The City is projected to support approximately
48,000 square feet of this type of retail through 2035. The three-mile market
area currently shows a significant amount of leakage for this type of retail;
however, the larger market area shows only moderate leakage. General
merchandise stores include warehouse stores (e.g. Costco and Sam's Club),
general retailers (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target and g0 Cents Only Stores) and
department stores (e.g. Macy's and JCPenney). Many of these stores are large
format and typically e.xceed 100,000 square feet, which is greater than the future
and regional market area demand. In addition, the department stores typically
agglomerate in regional and lifestyle retail centers. Given the existing market
area competition, limited opportunities for this type of retail may exist in the near-
to mid-term for smaller establishments (e.g. 99 Cents Only Stores, Wal-Mart
Neighborhood Market, etc.). Demand from City residents is unlikely to meet the
threshold for large format stores during the projection period.
6. Food Service and Drinking Places -The City is projected to support a healthy
amount of this retail through (75,000 square feet) through 2035. In addition,
office/business park employees spend approximately $3.0 million annually on
food, providing additional support to the local restaurant industry. The market
area shows fluctuating demand depending on the trade area; however, the trade
area for many food service and drinking spaces is typically less than three miles.
Food service tenants are typically smaller in nature, occupying in-line retail
spaces and pad sites. As such, this potential would be well suited for
opportunities in existing centers or along High Street in the near-to mid-term.
Further, these tenants can be good tenants for mixed-use, commercial/residential
developments.
7. Other Retail Group -This group includes small retailers such as books stores,
hobby stores, florists and other similar retailers. The City is projected to support
a reasonable amount of this retail through (47,000 square feet) through 2035.
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
98
115
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 22
However, the three-and five-mile market areas show a surplus of these types of
stores. Given the current market area surplus, demand for this space is likely to
be limited in the near-to mid-term. Similar to food-services, these tenants are
typically smaller in nature, occupying in-line retail spaces. As such, the mid-to
long-term potential for this space would be well suited for opportunities in existing
centers or along High Street. Further, these tenants can be good tenants for
mixed-use, commercial/residential developments.
Brokers active in the City indicate an excess of co.mmercial space in the community.
The current vacancy rates, rental rates and productivity levels further substantiate the
belief that the City's re.tail market is soft.
The current surplus/leakage analysis indicates support for 220,000 square feet of retail.
However, the distribution of demand across establishment types makes it insufficient to
support many tenant types. In addition, the five-mile market area is already absorbing
much of this demand, particularly for home furnishings/electronic/appliance stores,
building materials stores, sporting goods/hobby stores, general merchandise and
miscellaneous retailers. When the market area capture of these tenant types is
considered, the potential demand is only 140,000 square feet.
Based on current projections, citywide retail demand through 2035 totals 455,000 square
feet; however, much of this demand is currently being absorbed in the market area due
to agglomeration principles and stronger locations. In fact, the current surplus of sales in
the five-mile market area for home furnishings & appliance stores, building materials
stores and other/miscellaneous retail is greater than the demand projected for the City
through 2035. When the productivity level of the market area establishments is
considered, the supported retail is only 310,000 square feet. Assuming the City captures
a share of this demand consistent with current levels, then the potential supported
development is approximately 200,000 square tee!. Assuming the range of retail
demand estimated in the sensitivity test (374,000 to 589,000 square feet), the supported
retail would be 165,000 to 275,000 square feet. 16
The limited demand and current vacancies of 283,000 square feet, corroborate the
broker comments about an excess of retail space in the City. As such, the City may
consider the potential conversion of commercial in less desirable areas. This would
promote a healthier retail environment in those areas that are more successful.
Specifically, if the City were to promote the conversion of lesser performing commercial
16 This is particularly true for a·pparel stores, as the ten-mile market area shows a significant
surplus of these sales.
1604016.MOO~.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
99
116
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 23
centers to residential and/or mixed use, this would increase the buying power of the
market and benefit retailers.
OFFICE OVERVIEW
The information compiled for the office overview can be summarized as follows:
1. As shown in Table 15, office vacancy rates are approximately 14.4% in Ventura
County. Over the past year, there has been limited new construction and only
modest absorption. Within the Simi Valley/Moorpark market area, the vacancy
rate is 20.3% and rents are $1.82 per square foot compared to the County
average of $1.97 per square foot.
2. As shown in Table 16, rents in the City range from $. 75 to $2.85 per square foot.
The weighted average is $2.11 per square foot. These rents are higher than the
market area average.
3. Table 17 shows office demand projections for a five-mile market area, which
indicates support for 325,000 square feet of office through 2035 (20 years) based
on employment growth. This support would include filling existing, proposed and
future office developments.
Cumulative Office Demand
Cumulative Office Demand
(Square Feet)
2015-2020
71,200
2015-2025 2015-2030
148,700 233, 100
2015-2035
325,200
Overall, th.e office market is still recovering from the recession, as vacancy rates and
rents are moving off their 2010-2012 levels and absorption is still relatively slow;
therefore, limited office development has occurred in Ventura County over the past year.
Further, it should be noted that the current plans for many businesses is to reduce the
amount of office space required per employee. When designing buildings, architects
historically es.timated up to 250 square feet of space per employee; however, many are
now using the 200 square feet per employee assumed herein and some design firms are
going as low as 175 square feet per employee. These changes reflect the continuing
evolution of technology and its ability to free employees from a desk by working off-site,
working at home and/or hoteling. Given these factors, the higher vacancy rates in the
market area and the small population and employment base in the City, market
opportunities are anticipated to be limited in the near-to mid-term to smaller professional
space or institutional development. Larger scale office demand is likely to be driven by
factors outside of normal market conditions (employment growth), as companies will
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
100
117
To:
Subject:
Qavid Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 24
sometimes choos.e locations based on business decisions (e.g. proximity to decision
makers' residences) and not market factors. Additional demand may also result from the
expansion of a specific business that exceeds the anticipated growth within its industry.
INDUSTRIAL OVERVIEW
The information compiled for the industrial overview can be summarized as follows:
1. As shown in Table 18, industrial vacancy rates are approximately 5.6% in
Ventura County. Over the past year, there has been limited new construction;
however. absorption has been very healthy. Within the Simi Valley/Moorpark
market area, the vacancy rate is 5.3% and the area accounts for 50% of the
countywide absorptions. Market area rents are $.60 per square foot compared to
the County average of $.65 per square foot.
2. As shown in Table 19, rents in the City range from $.40 to $1.00 per square foot.
The weighted average is $.41 per square foot. These rents are lower than the
market area average.
The Southern California industrial market is very healthy. Within Ventura County, the
market is strong, with an average vacancy rate 5.6% and high absorption levels. In
particular, the local market area is very healthy with vacancy rates that are lower than
the County (5.3%) and strong absorption (377,000 square feet). which account for 50%
of the County total. Given these factors, market demand is likely to be strong in the
near-to mid-term, particularly for logistics related industrial development. However,
industrial development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the success of the
City's retailers, as the typical employee to space ratio in these buildings ranges from
1,000 to 2,000 square feet per employee.
LODGING OVERVIEW
The lodging market conditions are summarized below. The analysis herein relies on
data provided by PKF Consulting, which is a leading hotel market data firm. Moorpark is
included in their Simi Valley market area; however, the City is also located near
Thousand Oaks. This is an important point of distinction, as the Thousand Oaks/Agoura
Hills hotels generate much higher Average Daily Rates (ADR) and occupancy levels
than Simi Valley, due to its location on U.S. Route 101 and prevalence of high tech and
biotech companies, which are significant demand stimulators. For the purposes of this
study, KMA has shown the lodging performance factors for the Simi Valley market area,
with the Thousand Oaks and Camarillo market areas provided for context.
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001.001
101
118
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 25
1. As shown in Table 20, the hotel market has steadily improved since 2010
throughout Ventura County. This improvement is consistent with patterns in
California and across the country. Historic occupancy rates for the Simi Valley,
Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills and Camarillo market areas have trended above
than the County average, with the Simi Valley market area projected to achieve a
76.7% occupancy level in 2016.
Projected Average Occupancy -201617
Simi Valley Market Area
Camarillo Market Area
Thousand Oaks Market Area
Ventura County
76.7%
75.2%
78.8%
74.5%
2. As shown in Table 21, the ADR for Simi Valley and Camarillo market areas are
lower than the County average; however, Thousand Oaks/Agoura HiUs is
significantly higher:
Projected Average Daily Rate -20169
Simi Valley Market Area
Camarillo Market Area
Thousand Oaks Market Area
Ventura County
$108.68
$114.55
$164.14
$124.52
3. As shown in Table 22, the lower ADR results in a relatively low Revenue per
Available Room (RevPAR -ADR *Occupancy) for Simi Valley and Camarillo
when compared to Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills and the County.
Projected RevPAR -20169
Simi Valley Market Area
Camarillo Market Area
Thousand Oaks Market Area
Ventura County
$83.36
$86.14
$129.34
$92.77
4. As shown in Table 23, the compound annual change in demand for the regional
markets and the County. As summarized below, demand increased at a much
17 Source: _PKF 2016 Southern California Lodging Forecast
1604016.MOOR.KEE:emm
16037.001 001
102
119
To:
Subject:
David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 26
faster rate in the Camarillo and Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills market area.s when
compared to the Simi Valley market area.
Demand Change -
(CAAG) 2010-2016
Simi Valley Market Area
Camarillo Market Area
Thousand Oaks Market Area
Ventura County
1.80%
3.29%
2.97%
2.38%
5. Given the hotel market conditions, KMA estimated hotel demand in the Simi
Valley market area over the next 20 years. The analysis is summarized in Table
24, which shows potential demand for 356 to 556 hotel rooms in the market area
during this period.
The Simi Valley market area has not seen an increa.se in the number of hotel rooms over
the past five years. However, a new Hampton Inn & Suites is planned for Simi Valley on
the 2500 block of Cochran Street and a 108-room Fairfield Hotel is planned for
Moorpark.18 Further, the lodging performance of the Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills
market area shows very healthy demand and rates. The demand analysis indicates a
healthy amount of hotel potential over the next 20 years. For this reason, the two new
hotel projects are currently being considered in the market area. If these projects
proceed, they will account for a healthy share of the local near to mid-term demand.
However, the healthy demand and rates in the Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills market area
may provide additional opportunities for Moorpark. It is important to note, that the ADR
and occupancy levels in the Simi Valley market area modest. Therefore, even if a hotel
has market feasibility, it may be difficult to achieve financial feasibility because the
RevPAR is unable to support acquisition and construction costs.
BUILDING AND LAND COMPS
Over the past two years relatively few commercial land and building sales have occurred
in the City.
1. As shown in Table 25, the average price for retail buildings was $240 per square
foot, with an imputed land value of $25 per square foot. These transactions
include the sales of Mission Bell Plaza and Moorpark Town Center.
18 Source: PKF Southern California Lodging Forecast
1604016.MOORKEE:emm
16037.001.001
103
120
To: David Bobardt, City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
August 26, 2016
Page 27
2. As shown in Table 26, only one office building sale occurred during this period.
The small, 2,000 square foot building sold for $350 per square foot.
3. As shown i.n Table 27, five industrial buildings sold during this period for an
average price per square foot of $140 and an imputed land value of $50 per
square foot.
4. As shown in Table 28, only one commercial land sale occurred during this period.
The 62,300 square foot site on Los Angeles Avenue sold for $1.6 million, $26 per
square foot. There are improvements on this property, but the value was based
unimproved land due to the obsolescence of the structures.
1604016.MOOR KEE:emm
16037.001.001
104
121
To: David Bobardt. City of Moorpark
Subject: City of Moorpark Market Opportunities
LIMITING CONDITIONS
August 26, 2016
Page 28
1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data from
secondary sources such as state and local government, planning agencies, real
estate brokers, and other third parties. While KMA believes that these sources
are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
2. The analysis assumes that neither the local nor national economy will experience
a major recession. If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the
conclusions contained herein may no longer be valid.
3. The findings are based on economic rather than political consideration_s.
Therefore, they should be construed neith_er as a representation nor opinion that
government approvals for development can be secured.
4. Market feasibility is not equivalent to financial feasibility; other factors apart from
the level of demand for a land use are of crucial importance in determining
feasibility. These factors include the cost of acquiring sites, relocation burdens,
traffic impacts, remediation of toxics (if any), and mitigation measures required
through the approval process.
5. Development opportunities are assumed to be achievable during the specified
time frame. A change in development schedule requires that the conclusions
contained herein be reviewed for validity.
6. The analysis, opinions, recommendations and conclusions of this document are
KMA's informed judgment based on market and economic conditions as of the
date of this report. Due to the volatility of market conditions and complex
dynamics influencing the economic conditions of the building and development
industry, conclusions and recommended actions contained herein should not be
relied upon as sole input for final business decisions regarding current and future
' development and planning.
1604016.MOOR KEE:ermi
16037.001.001
105
122
TABLE 1
2015 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITlTES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Population
3 Mile Ring
5 Mile Ring
10 Mile Ring
Moorpark
Ventura County
Households
3Mile Ring
5Mile Ring
10 Mile Ring
Moorpark
Ventura County
38,700
80,1 00
361 ,200
35 ,700
849,600
11 ,800
26,500
123,800
10,800
275,300
Average Parsons Par Hhold
3 Mile Ring 3.27
5 Mile Ring 2 .97
10 Mile Ring 2 .89
Moorpark 3 .30
Ventura County 3.05
Source: Claritas
Population
500 ,000 ,...-------------------------~
400,000 ---------------------------l
300,000 -+--------------------
2 00,000 T--------------------
100,000 T--------------------
0 .)__j--L__~ _ _J
3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring 10 Mile Ring
Households
150,000 -r---------------------------,
120,000 --------------------
90,000 T--------------------
60,000 +-------------------
30,000 +-----------o L_j _____ _
3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring 10 Mile Ring
Average Persons Per Household
4.00 -r------------------------------.
3 .00
2 .00
1.00
0.00
3 Mile Ring 5 Mlle Ring 10 Mile Ring Moorpark Ventura County
Prepared by: Keys er Marston As sociates , Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4 : 1; 8/2512016 Page 1 of33
106
123
APPENDIX 1 -TABLE 1 (Continued)
2015 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNmTES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Average Household Income
3 Mile Ring $122 ,600
Average Household Income
5 Mile Ring $123,300 $150,000 ~--------------------------.
10 Mile Ring $115,100
Moorpark $117 ,600
Ventura County $96,700
Median Household Income
$120,000
$90,000
$60,000
$30,000
$0
3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring 10 Mile Ring Moorpark Ventura County
Median Household Income
3 Mile Ring $97 ,775
5 Mile Ring $96,821
$125,000 ~-------------------------,
10 Mile Ring $89,211 $100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
Moorpark $95 ,878
Ventura County $73 ,044
$0
Household Income Distribution
3 Mile Ring
5 Mile Ring
10 Mile Ring
Moorpark
Ventura County
Under $25,000 !5,000 to $49,999
8.48% 12.15%
10.02 % 12.99%
11 .86% 15.24%
8.59 % 12.52%
15.27% 18.56%
3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring 10 Mile Ring
$50,000 to $99,999
30.78%
28.80%
28.93%
31 .56%
31 .57%
$100,000 to $149,999
23.38%
21 .66%
20.31%
23.98%
17.51%
Household Income Distribution
10.00%
0 .00%
Moorpark Ventura County
$150,000+
25.22%
26.54%
23.66%
23.35%
17.09%
Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49 ,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100 ,000 to $149,999 $150,000+
C1 3 Mile Ring •5 Mile Ring 010 Mile Ring 11Moorpark 11Ventura County
Source: Claritas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates , Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4 ; 1: 8/25/2016 Page 2 of 33
107
124
APPENDIX 1-TABLE1 (Conti nued)
2015 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNmTES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Age Distribution
Under 18 18 to 34
3 Mile R ing 24 .87% 23.77%
5 Mile Ring 22.62% 22 .84%
10 Mile Ring . 22.84% 21 .07%
Moorpark 25.31% 24 .06%
Ventura County 24.4 2% 23 .02%
35 to Sot 55 to 64 Over65
27.16% 14.14% 10.09%
26.39% 14.23% 13 .93%
27.35% 13.85% 14.89%
27.51% 13.61% 9 .50%
26.56% 12.57% 13 .42%
Age Distribution
30.00% ~ 20.00'Mo I 11111
10.00'Mo
0.00%
Under 18 18to~
113 Mlle Ring •S Mile Ring
Education Level of Residents Over 25 Years
3 Mile Ring
5 Mile Ring
10 Mile Ring
Moorpark
Ventura County
No HS Degree HS Degree
11 .36% 16.60%
8.74% 15.93%
9.38% 16.71%
12.00% 16.96%
17.40% 18.39%
35 lo 54
D 10 Mile Ring
SomeCoUege
33.05%
31 .84%
32 .81%
33.42%
32.78%
SS to&!
a Moorpark •Ventura County
College Grad.
38.98%
43.50%
41 .1 0 %
37.62%
31 .43%
Education Level of Residents Over 25 Years
Over es
45.00% ~-~ 1::::1111111 m;-mrr11111111CD---1• 1111111 IJij
No HS Degree HS Degree
g3 Mile Ring •5 Mile Ring
Source: Claritas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 1; 8125120 16
Some College Colleg e Grad.
010 Mlle Ring DMoorpark •Ventura County
Page 3 of 33
108
125
APPENDIX 1 ·TABLE 1 (Continued)
2015 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK CALIFORNIA
Race Classification
White Black
3 Mile Ring 75 .27% 1.52%
5 Mile Ring 78 .18% 1.56%
10 Mile Ring 74.n% 1.48%
Moorpark 74.62% 1.54%
Ventura County 67.20% 1.87%
VVhite Black
American Indian Asian and Pl Other
0.84% 6.78% 15 .58%
0.65% 7.15% 12 .45%
0.59% 8.94% 14.23%
0.86% 6 .85% 16.14%
1.02% 7.27% 22.63%
Race Classlflcatlon
CJ111t11
American Indian Asian and Pl Other Hispanic*
1!13 Mlle Ring •5 Mile Ring 010 Mile Ring aMoorpar1< a Ventura County
Hispanic*
31.68%
24.63%
25.43%
33.16%
42.30%
• Hispanic population percentage calculated separately from other races. In the 200 US Census, census takers were first asked to identify
their race as 'Mlite, Black, Ameircan Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Other; and then asked if they identify as Hispanic/Latino or Non-
Hispanic/Latino .
Source: Clantas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 1; 8/2512016 Page 4 of 33
109
126
TABLE 2
MARKET AREA POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNmTES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
POPULATION
2015
3 Mile Ring 38,676
5 Mile Ring 80,069
10 Mile Ring 361, 190
Moorparl< 35,735
Ventura County 849,566
2015
3 Mile Ring 11,814
5 Mile Ring 26,451
10 Mile Ring 123,788
Moorparl< 10,836
Ventura County 275,297
Source: Claritas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 2; 812512016
Change
2020 Total Percent
40,176 1,500 3.9o/o
82,800 2,731 3.4%
374,768 13,578 3.Bo/o
37,168 1,433 4.0°/o
880,563 30,997 3.6°/o
HOUSEHOLDS
Change
2020 Total Percent
12,300 486 4.1°/o
27,449 998 ·3.8°/o
128,658 4,870 3.9°/o
11,292 456 4.2%
285,729 10,432 3.8%
Page 5 of 33
110
127
TABLE 3
SCAG POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD & EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
2012
Camarillo city 66,300
Fillmore city 18,800
Moorpark city 34,800
Ojai city 7,500
Oxnard city 200, 100
Port Hueneme city 21,800
San Buenaventura 106,700
Santa Paula city 29,800
Simi Valley city 125,100
Thousand Oaks city 127,800
Unincorporated 96 700
Ventura County 835,400
Po ulation
2020
69,500
20,000
39,000
7,700
220,200
22,100
112,500
34,400
129,200
129,800
102 000
886,400
Households
2012
Camarillo city 24,800
Fillmore city 5,200
Moorpark city 10,600
Ojai city 3,100
Oxnard city 50,100
Port Hueneme city 7,100
San Buenaventura 40,700
Santa Paula city 8,500
Simi Valley city 41,300
Thousand Oaks city 45,900
Unincorporated 32100
Ventura County 269,400
2012
Camarillo city 35,800
Fillmore city 3,000
Moorpark city 11,300
Ojai city 5,100
Oxnard city 58,100
Port Hueneme city 6,400
San Buenaventura 60,700
Santa Paula city 7,800
Simi Valley city 44,000
Thousand Oaks city 68,200
Unincorporated 31 800
Ventura County 332,200
Source: SCAG
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 3; 8/2512016
2020
26,000
5,700
12,000
3,200
55, 100
7,300
42,700
9,900
42,900
46,600
33 900
285,300
Em lo ant
2020
40,500
4,100
14,300
5,100
68,000
6,600
62,700
9,900
53,700
73,700
35 700
374,300
2040
79,900
21,800
43,000
8,400
237,300
22.400
125,300
39,600
142,400
131,700
113600
965,400
2040
30,200
6,300
13,100
3,300
60, 100
7,300
48,400
11,500
47,400
47,200
37 500
312,300
2040
47,300
5,300
16,600
5,300
79,200
6,700
66,000
11,700
61,100
81,900
~
419,800
Page 6 of 33
111
128
TABLE4
SCAG POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD & EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION CHANGES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITlTES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
2012-2020
Change £MQ 2C9!!
CamariUo city 0.6% 3,200
Fillmore city 0.8% 1,200
Moorpark city 1.4% 4,200
Ojai city 0.3% 200
Oxnard city 1.2% 20.100
Port Hueneme city 0.2% 300
San Buenaventura 0.7% 5,800
Santa Paula city 1.8% 4,600
Simi Valley city 0.4% 4,100
Thousand Oaks city 0.2% 2,000
Unincorporated 0.7% 5,300
Ventura County 0.7% 51,000
2012-2020
Change CAAG Gross
Camarillo city 0.6% 1,200
Fillmore city 1.2% 500
Moorpark city 1.6% 1,400
Ojai city 0.4% 100
Oxnard city 1.2% 5,00,0
Port Hueneme city 0.3% 200
San Buenaventura 0.6% 2,000
Santa Paula city 1.9% 1,400
Simi Valley city 0.5% 1,600
Thousand Oaks city 0.2% 700
Unincorporated 0.7% 1,800
Ventura County 0.7% 15,900
2012-2020
Change £Mli §!!!!!
Cai:nariUo city 1.6% 4,700
Fillmore city 4.0% 1.100
Moorpark city 3.0% 3,000
Ojai city 0.0% 0
Oxnard city 2.0% 9,900
Port HUeneme city 0.4% 200
San Buenaventura 0.4% 2,000
Santa Paula city 3.0% 2,100
Simi Valley city 2.5% 9:100
Thousand Oaks city 1.0% 5,500
Unincorporated 1.5% 3,900
Verrtura County 1.5% 42.100
Source: SCAG. KMA
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 4; 8/25/2016
Po ulation
2020-2040
CAAG Gross
0.7% 10,4()0
0.4% 1,800
0.5% 4,000
0.4% 700
0.4% 17,100
0.1% 300
0.5% 12.800
0.7% 5,200
0.5% 13,200
0.1% 1,900
0.5% 11.600
0.4% 79,000
Households
2020-2040
CAAG §!!!!!
0.8% 4,200
0.5% 600
0.4°.4 1,100
0.2% 100
0.4% 5,000
0.0% 0
0.6% 5,700
0.8% 1,600
0.5% 4,500
0.1% 600
0.5% 3,600
0.5% 27,000
Em lo mBnt
2020-2040
CAAG .!!!!!!!
0.8% 6,800
1.3% 1.200
0.7% 2,300
0.2% 200
0.8% 11.200
Q.1 Ofo 100
0.3% 3,300
0.8% 1,800
0.6% 7,400
0.5% 8,200
0.4% 3,000
0.6% 45,500
2012-2040
CAAG Gross
0.7% 13,600
0.5% 3,000
0.8% 8,200
0.4% 900
0.6% 37.200
0.1°..b 600
0.6% 18,600
1.0% 9,800
0.5% 17.300
0.1% 3,900
0.6% 16,900
0.5°/o 130,000
2012-2040
£MSl Gross
0.7% 5,400
0.7% 1,100
o.a•1a 2,500
0.2% 200
0.7% 10,000
0.1% 200
0.6% 7,700
1.1% 3,000
0.5% 6,100
0.1% 1,300
0.6% 5,400
0.5% 42,900
2012-2040
CAAG Gross
1.0% 11,500
2.1% 2,300
1.4% 5,300
0.1% 200
1.1% 21,100
0.2% 300
0.3% 5,300
1.5% 3,900
1.2% 17,100
0.7°,.b 13,700
0.7% 6,900
0.8% 87,600
Page 7 of 33
112
129
f-'
f-'
w
TABLE 5
HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT FIGURES -VENTURA COUNTY
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Labor Force Employment
Total Change Total
1995 378,800 350,700
1996 376,600 (2,200) 349,400
1997 378,600 2,000 353,500
1998 385,700 7, 100 364,300
1999 ' 394,300 8,600 375,300
2000 393,000 (1,300) 375,200
2001 399,000 6,000 379,600
2002 406,100 7,100 382,800
2003 409,700 3,600 386,200
2004 412,300 2,600 390,300
2005 416,000 3,700 396,200
2006 419,600 3,600 401,500
2007 423,100 3,500 402,400
2008 428,800 5,700 401,800
2009 430,300 1,500 388,800
2010 430,400 100 383,800
2011 432,200 1,800 388,000
2012 435,900 3,700 396,200
2013 434,300 (1,600) 400,100
2014 431,500 (2,800) 402,700
Source: California Employment Development Department. KMA
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 5; 8/25/2016
Change
(1,300)
4,100
10,800
11,000
(100)
4,400
3,200
3,400
4,100
5,900
5,300
900
(600)
(13,000)
(5,000)
4,200
8,200
3,900
2,600
Unemployment Unemployment Rate
Total Change Total Change
28, 100 7.420/o
27,200 (900) 7.22o/o -0.2o/o
25,100 (2,100) 6.63% -0.6o/o
21,400 (3,700) 5.55% -1.1%
19,000 (2,400) 4.82% -0. 7°/o
17,800 (1,200) 4.53% -0.3%
19,400 1,600 4.86°/o 0.3°/o
23,300 3,900 5.74°/o 0.9°/o
23,500 200 5.74°/o O.Oo/o
22,000 (1,500) 5.34°/o -0.4o/o
19,800 (2,200) 4.76o/o -0.6o/o
18,100 (1,700) 4.31o/o -0.4o/o
20,700 2,600 4.89% 0.6o/o
27,000 6,300 6.30% 1.4o/o
41,500 14,500 9.64% 3.3°/o
46,600 5,100 10.83% 1.2°/o
44,200 (2,400) 10.23% -0.6%
39,700 (4,500) 9.11°/o -1.1°/o
34,200 (5,500) 7.87°/o -1.2°/o
28,800 (5,400) 6.67°/o -1.2°/o
Page 8 of 33
130
>-"'
>-"'
""
TABLE 6
MARKET AREA EMPLOYMENT & BUSINESSES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
' Bus.
Agriculture 8
Mining 0
Utllltles 0
Construction 135
Manufacturing 61
Wholesale Trade 52
Transportation & Warehousing 16
lnfonnatlon 25
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing 49
Professlonal/Scl!Tech Services 103
Management of Companies 0
Administrative/Support Services 71
Educational Services 28
Healthcare & Social Assistance 109
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 24
Retail Trade 152
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 12
Furniture/Home Furnishings 9
Electronic/Appliance Stores 23
Building Material/Garden 24
Food & Beverage Stores 17
Heallth & Personal Care Stores 13
Gasoline Stations 5
Clothing & Accessories Stores 9
SporUHobby/Music/Book Stores 5
General Merchandise Stores 8
Miscellaneous Retail Stores 23
Nonstore Retailers 4
Finance & Insurance 69
Monetary Authorities 0
CrediUlntermediation Activities 26
Sec/Comm Contracts & Fin. Inv 12
Insurance Carriers 29
FundsfTrusts & Other Finance 2
Accomodatlon & Food Services 77
Accomodation 3
Food Services & Drinking Places 74
Other Services (Non Public Ad.) 114
Repair & Maintenance 40
Pesonal & Laundry Serv. 48
Religious/GranUCivic Org. 26
Public Administration 11
Total . 1.104
SO-UrCe: Claritas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 6; 8/25/2016
3Mlle Ring
Emp. PopJBus. Emo./Bus. Bus.
24 5,022 3.0 15
0 NA NA 1
0 NA NA 1
916 298 6.8 272
1,283 659 21.0 123
993 773 19.1 100
79 2,511 4.9 27
342 1,607 13.7 47
318 820 6.5 99
458 390 4.4 233
0 NA NA 1
556 566 7.8 136
1,194 1,435 42.6 54
610 369 5.6 327
223 1,674 9.3 43
1,846 264 12.1 330
89 3,348 7.4 31
31 4.464 3.4 20
215 1,747 9.3 45
185 1,674 7.7 61
198 2,363 11.6 26
77 3,090 5.9 29
32 8,035 6.4 11
30 4,464 3.3 17
200 8,035 40.0 18
147 5,022 18.4 15
635 1,747 27.6 47
7 10,044 1.8 10
1,135 582 16,4 132
0 NA NA 0
78 1,545 3.0 42
234 3,348 19.5 19
97 1,385 3.3 69
726 20,088 363.0 2
1, 109 522 14.4 113
9 13,392 3.0 6
1,100 543 14.9 107
543 352 4.8 229
188 1,004 4.7 99
238 837 5.0 83
117 1,545 4.5 47
357 3,652 32.6 20
11,986 36 10.9 2,303
5 Mlle Ring 10 Mlle Ring
Emo. Pop./Bus. Emp./Bus. Bus. Emp, Poo./Bus. Emp./Bus.
62 5,520 4.1 68 420 5,511 6.2
46 82,800 46.0 5 99 74,954 19.8
44 82,800 44.0 8 116 46,846 14.5
1,606 304 5.9 1,426 7,689 263 5.4
2,344 673 19.1 571 17,781 656 31.1
1,405 828 14.1 537 8,443 698 15.7
185 3,067 6.9 159 1,381 2,357 8.7
640 1,762 13.6 277 5,879 1,353 21.2
634 836 6.4 729 4,065 514 5.6
1,085 355 4.7 1,886 9,772 199 5.2
2 82,800 2.0 7 18 53,538 2.6
1,000 609 7.4· 704 4,519 532 6.4
2,350 1,533 43.5 307 8,983 1,221 29.3
2,035 253 6.2 2,680 17,053 140 6.4
396 1,926 9.2 296 3,307 1,266 11.2
4,183 251 12.7 2, 111 24,839 178 11.8
684 2,671 22.1 183 3,279 2,048 17.9
70 4,140 3.5 116 1,026 3,231 8.8
515 1,840 11.4 235 2,163 1,595 9.2
481 1,357 7.9 304 3,388 1,233 11.1
312 3, 185 12.0 183 3,853 2,048 21. 1
167 2,855 5.8 187 1,601 2,004 8.6
50 7,527 4.5 66 266 5,678 4.0
58 4,871 3.4 258 1,877 1.453 7.3
284 4,600 15.8 140 1,194 2,677 8.5
586 5,520 39.1 82 3,603 4,570 43.9
953 1,762 20.3 304 2,331 1,233 7.7
23 8,280 2.3 53 258 7,071 4.9
1,336 627 10. 1 1,257 8,702 298 6.9
0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA
115 1,971 2.7 402 1,942 932 4.8
250 4,358 13.2 240 1,283 1,562 5.3
245 1,200 3.6 601 4,689 624 7.8
726 41,400 363.0 14 788 26,769 56.3
1,736 733 15.4 697 11,003 538 15.8
189 13,800 31.5 39 1,155 9,609 29.6
1,547 774 14.5 658 9,848 570 15.0
1,088 362 4.8 1,369 11,251 274 8.2
436 836 4.4 502 6,473 747 12.9
372 998 4.5 572 2,867 655 5.0
280 1,762 6.0 295 1,911 1,270 6.5
953 4,140 47.7 128 3,905 2,928 30.5
23,130 36 10.0 15,222 149,225 26 9.8
Page 9 of 33
131
f--'
f--'
U1
TABLE 6
MARKET AREA EMPLOYMENT & BUSll
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITI
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Agriculture
Mining
UtlllUes
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
lnfonnatlon
Real EstateJRentaULeaalng
Professlonal/Scl/Tech Services
Management of Companies
Administrative/Support Services
Educational Services
Healthcare & Soclal Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation
Retail Trade
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers
Furniture/Home Furnishings
Electronic/Appliance Stores
Building Material/Garden
Food & Beverage Stores
Heallth & Personal Care Stores
Gasoline Stations
Clothing & Accessories Stores
Sport/Hobby/Music/Book Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Miscellaneous Retail Stores
Nonstore Retailers
Finance & Insurance
Monetary Authorities
Credit/Intermediation Activities
Sec/Comm Contracts & Fin. Inv
Insurance Carriers
Funds/Trusts & Other Finance
Accomodatlon & Food Services
Accomodation
Food Services & Drinking Places
Other Services (Non Public Ad.)
Repair & Maintenance
Pesonal & Laundry Serv.
Religious/GranVCivic Org.
Publlc Administration
Total --
Source: Claritas
Bus.
10
0
0
127
53
62
16
24
49
94
0
63
28
108
20
141
12
6
21
23
17
11
6
8
5
8
21
3
64
0
24
10
27
3
72
2
70
114
38
49
27
13
1,047
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 6; 8/25/2016
Moorpar•
Emo. Poo./Bus.
•• 3,717
0 NA
0 NA
892 293
1,233 701
974 716
76 2,478
344 1,549
309 759
476 396
0 NA
611 590
1,259 1,327
601 344
216 1,8&6
1,737 264
85 3,097
26 6,195
207 1,770
175 1,616
147 2.186
75 3,379
31 6,195
30 4,646
194 7,434
147 4,646
613 1,770
7 12,389
1,083 581
0 NA
75 1,549
220 3,717
94 1,377
694 12,389
1,071 516
8 18,584
t,063 531
599 326
177 978
235 759
187 1,377
350 2,859
11,772 35
Ventura county
Emo./Bus. Bus. Emo. PooJBus. EmoJBus.
4.2 ... 3,1aa 4,••• 16.1
NA 32 393 27,518 12.3
NA 62 &68 16,934 10.9
7.0 2,624 14,&66 336 5.6
23.3 1,153 30,072 764 26.1
18.7 1,091 18,830 807 17.1
5.0 434 4,127 2,029 9.5
14.3 513 7,824 1,716 15.4
6.3 1,581 8,762 567 5.6
5.1 3,476 17,962 263 5.2
NA 11 42 80,051 3.8
8.1 1,401 10,226 629 7.3
45.0 667 19,691 1,340 30.0
5.6 5,122 36,865 172 7.2
10.8 571 6,077 1,542 10.6
12.3 4,429 49,115 199 11.1
7.1 437 6,785 2,015 15.5
4.3 228 1,666 3,862 7.3
9.9 400 3,678 2,201 9.2
7.6 521 5,542 1,690 10.6
8.6 504 7.558 1,747 15.0
6.8 364 4,933 2,419 13.6
5.2 173 820 5,090 4.7
3.8 561 4,569 1,570 8.1
38.8 295 2,144 2.985 7.3
18.4 185 6,470 4,760 35.0
29.2 661 4,523 1,332 6.8
2.3 100 427 8,806 4.3
16.9 2,182 12,161 404 5.6
NA 0 0 NA NA
3.1 811 3,426 1,086 4.2
22.0 345 1,722 2,552 5.0
3.5 1,016 6.254 867 6.2
231.3 10 759 88,056 75.9
14.9 1,626 24,897 542 15.3
4.0 132 3,737 6,671 28.3
15.2 1,494 21,160 589 14.2
5.3 3,117 19,109 283 6'1
4.7 1,064 8,700 812 8.0
4.8 1,255 5.514 702 4.4
6.9 778 4,895 1, 132 6.3
26.9 472 30,171 1,866 63.9
11.2 30,740 314,500 29 10.2
Page10of33
132
TABLE7
SHARE OF TOTAL BUSINESSES & EMPLOYMENT
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK CALIFORNIA
3 Mile Ring
Bus. Emp.
Ag~lculture 0.7°11 0.2°11
Mining O.Oo/. o.o%
Utilities 0.0°!. 0.0%
Construction 12.2°/o 7.6%
Manufacturing 5.5% 10.7%
Wholesale Trade 4.7"!. 8.3%
Trar:asportatlo_n & Warehousing 1.4°!. 0.7%
lnfonnation 2.3'!. 2.9%
Real EstatelR.entaUleasing 4.4% 2.7%
Profesalonal/SclfTech Services 9.3% 3.8%
Management of Companies 0.0"!. 0.0%
Administrative/Support Services 6.4% 4.6%
Educational Services 2.S-J. 10.0%
Healthcare & Soclal As;slstal_l~e 9.9% 5.1%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 2.2% {9%
Retail Trade 13.8% 15.4•/.
Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 1.1% 0.7%
FUmiture/Home Furnishings 0.8% 0.3%
Electronic/Appliance Stores 2.1% 1.8°/o
Building Material/Garden 2.2o/a 1.5%
Food & Beverage Stores 1.5% 1.7%
Heallth & Personal Care Stores 1.2% 0.6%
Gasoline Stations 0.5% 0.3%
Clothing & Accessories stores 0.8% 0.3%
Sport/Hobby/Music/Book Stores 0.5°/o 1.7%
General Merchandise Stores 0.7% 1.2%
Miscetlaneous Retail Stores 2.1% 5.3%
Nonstore Retailers 0.4% 0.1%
Finance & Insurance 6.3% 9.5%
Monetary Authorities 0.0% 0.0%
Credit/Intermediation Activities 2.4% 0.7%
Sec/Comm Contracts & Fin. Inv 1.1°~ 2.0%
Insurance Carriers 2.6% 0.8%
FuiidsfTrusts & other Finance 0.2% 6.1%
Accomodatlon & Food services 7.0-1. 9.3%
Accomodation 0.3% 0.1%
Food Services & Drinking Places 6.7% 9.2%
Other Services (Non Public Ad.) 10.3% 4.5%
Repair & Maintenance 3.6% 1.6%
Pesonal & Laundry Serv. 4.3% 2.0%
Religlous/GranVCivic Org. 2.4% 1.0%
Publlc Administration 1.0"!. 3.0"!.
Total Businesses 100.0% 100.0•;.
Source: Clarltas; Keyser Marston Associates
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 7; 8/25/2016
SMiie Ring
BUs. Emp.
0.7°!. 0.3%
0.0'(• 0.2%
0.0'/o 0.21/o
11.8°/. 6.9%
5.3'.4 10.1%
4.3% 6.1%
1.2% 0.8%
2.0% 2.8%
4.J•(., 2.r1.
10.1% 4.rt.
0.09/o 0.0•1.
5.9% 4.3o/o
2.3°/o 10.r1.
14.2•;. a.a•;.
1.9"!. 1.711/.
14.311/. 1a.1·v.
1.3% 3.0%
0.9% 0.3%
2.0% 2.2°/o
2.6°/o 2.1%
1.1% 1.3%
1.3% 0.7%
0.5% 0.2%
0.7% 0.3%
0.8% 1.2%
0.7% 2.5%
2.0% 4.1%
0.4% 0.1%
5.7% 5.811/.
0.0% 0.0%
1.8% 0.5%
0.8% 1.1%
3.0% 1.1%
0.1% 3.1%
4.9% 7.5%
0.3% 0.8%
4.6% 6.7%
9.911/. 4.7"!.
4.3% 1.9%
3.6% 1.6%
2.0% 1.2%
0.9"!. 4.1%
100.0Y. 100.0"J.
10 Mlle Ring Moorpark Ventura County
Bus. Emp. Bus. Emp. Bus. Emp.
0.4'1. 0.3'!. 0.4% 0.6% 1.0%
0.0% 0.1-o/. 0.0% 0.0"!. 0.1% 0.1%
0.1% 0.1°11 o.o•4 0.0"!. o.r1. 0.2%
9.4% 5.2°!. 12.1'!. 7.6% 8.S-/o 4.6%
3.8% 11.9% 5.1% 10.5°/. 3.8% 9.6%
3.5% 5.7"!. 5.0% 8.3% 3.S-J. 5.9%
1.0% 0.9% 1.4% 0.6% 1.4% 1.3%
1.8% 3.9% 2.3% 2.9% 1.7"!. 2.5%
4.8% 2.7"!. 4.7% 2.6% 5.1'!. 2.8"!.
12.4-J. 6.5% 9.0% 4.0% 11.3'!. 5.7".
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0'4 0.0%
4.6% 3.0% 6.0% 4.3% 4.6% 3.3%
2.0'!. 6.0"!. 2.7% 10.7% 2.1•;. 6.3%
17.&•;. 11.4% 10.3•;. 5.1% 1&.1•;. 11.7".4
1.9% 2.2•;. 1.9% 1 .. a•;. 1.1•;. 1.9%
13.9% 1&.6•/. 13.5% 14.8% 14.4•/. 15.6%
1.2% 2.2% 1.1% 0.7% 1.4% 2.2%
0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5%
1.5% 1.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.3% 1.2%
2.0% 2.3% 2.2% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8%
1.2% 2.6% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 2.4%
1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.6% 1.2% 1.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3%
1.7% 1.3% 0.8% 0.3% 1.8% 1.5%
0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 1.6% 1.0% 0.7%
0.5% 2.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 2.1%
2.0% 1.6% 2.0% 5,2% 2.2% 1.4%
0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
8.3% 5.8% 6.1% 9.2% 7.1% 3.9%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2.6% 1.3% 2.3% 0.6% 2.6% 1.1%
1.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.9% 1.1% 0.5%
3.9% 3.1% 2.6% 0.8°/o 3.3% 2.0%
0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 5.9% 0.0% 0.2%
4.6% 7.4"¥. 6.9% 9.1% 5.3% 7 .9"!.
0.3% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 1.2%
4.3% 6.6% 6.7% 9.0% 4.9% 6.7%
9.0% 7.5% 10.9% 5.1% 10.1% 6.1%
3.3% 4.3% 3.6% 1.5% 3.5% 2.8%
3.8%· 1.9% 4.7% 2.0% 4.1% 1.8%
1.9% 1.3% 2.6% 1.6% 2.5% 1.6%
0.8% 2.6% 1.2% 3.0% 1.S-J. 9.6%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 11 of33
116
133
f-'
f-'
--J
TABLE 8
TOTAL & PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
------------------Total Taxable Sales ($000s)--------------------------
2013
Thousand Regional
Moorpark Simi Valley Oaks Market
Motor Vehicles and Parts Dlrs $25,876 $210,744 $590,071 $826,691
Home Furnishings & Appliances 16,940 42,954 126,369 186,263
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 7,909 112,635 102,852 223,396
F cod & Beverage Stores 19,299 84,638 131,701 235,638
Gasoline Stations 54, 102 188,048 213,546 455,696
Clothing & Clothing Accessories 13,496 36,670 183,509 233,675
General Merchandise Stores 42,687 282,581 151,083 476,351
Food Services & Drinking Pies 46, 165 176,700 294,673 517,538
Other Retail Group 38,365 108,238 235,601 382,204
Retail Stores Total $264,839 $1,243,208 $2,029,405 $3,537,452
--------------------------Per CaDlta Taxable Sales------------------------
Population 34,970 125,774
Moorpark Simi Valley
Motor Vehicles and Parts Dlrs $740 $1,676
Home Furnishings & Appliances 484 342
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 226 896
Food & Beverage Stores 552 673
Gasoline Stations 1,547 1,495
Clothing & Clothing Accessories 386 292
General Merchandise Stores 1,221 2,247
Food Services & Drinking Pies 1,320 1,405
Other Retail Group 1,097 861
Retail Stores Total $7,573 $9,884
Source: California State Board of EqualizaUon; and California State Department of Finance
' Per the CA State Board of Equalization, for those categories listed as"-". the sales are included in the "Other Retail Stores" category.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 8; 8/25/2016
2013
128,356 289,100
Thousand Regional
Oaks Market
$4,597 $2,860
985 644
801 773
1,026 815
1,664 1,576
1,430 808
1, 177 1,648
2,296 1,790
1,836 1,322
$15,811 $12,236
Ventura State of
County California
$1,838,612 $67 '986 ,436
479,315 25,411,008
684,286 29,680,053
573,417 25,289,203
1,208, 107 56,860,585
907,628 34,918,036
1, 136,487 51,431,094
1,250,942 62,776,359
1,022,643 48,086,943
$9,101,437 $402,439,717
836,864 38,030,609
Ventura State of
County California
$2, 197 $1,788
573 668
818 780
685 665
1,444 1,495
1,085 918
1,358 1,352
1,495 1,651
1,222 1,264
$10,876 $10,582
Page12of33
134
TABLE9
TOTAL PERMITS & SALES PER RETAIL PERMIT
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
MOO!J!ark
Motor Vehicles and Parts Dlrs 22
Home Furnishings & Appliances 19
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 16
Food & Beverage Stores 25
Gasoline Slations 8
Clothing & Clothing Accessories 21
General Merchandise Stores 7
Food Services & Drinking Pies 78
Other Relail Group 282
Retail Stores T olal 478
'
MOO!J!!rk
Motor Vehicles and Parts Dlrs $1,176,182
Home Furnishings & Appliances 891,579
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 494,313
Food & Beverage Stores 771,960
Gasoline Slations 6,762,750
Clothing & Clothing Accessories . 642,667
General Merchandise Stores 6,098, 143
Food Services & Drinking Pies 591,859
Other Relail Group 136,046
Relail Stores Averaoe $554.056
Population 34,970
Moorpark
Motor Vehicles and Parts Dlrs 0.6_3
Home Furnishings & Appliances 0.54
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 0.46
Food & Beverage Stores 0.71
Gasoline S_tati_ons 0.23
Clothing & Clothing Accessories 0.60
General Merchandise Stores 0.20
Food Services & Drinking Pies 2.23
Other Relail Group 8.06
Relail Stores Averaae 13.67
Total Pennits
2013
Thousand Regional
Simi Valle~ Oaks Market
85 108 215
84 161 264
45 41 102
81 85 191
29 30 67
122 231 374
38 51 96
266 337 681
1 042 1460 2.784
1,792 2,504 4,774
Taxable Sales Per Penni!
2013
Thousand Regional
Simi Valle~ Oaks Market
$2.479,341 $5,463,620 $3,845,074
511,357 784,901 705,542
2,503,000 2,508,585 2,190,157
1,044,914 1,549.424 1,233,707
6,484,414 7,118,200 6,801.433
300,574 794.411 624,799
7,436,342 2,962.412 4,961,990
664,286 874.401 759,968
103,875 161,371 . 137,286
$693.754 $810 465 $740 983
ennits per 1,000 Residents
2013
125,774 128,356 289,100
Thousand Regional
Simi Valley Oaks Market
0.68 0.84 0.74
0.67 1.25 0.91
0.36 0.32 0.35
0.64 0.66 0.66
0.23 0.23 0.23
0.97 1.80 1.29
0.30 0.40 0.33
2. 11 2.63 2.36
8.28 11.37 9.63
14.25 19.51 16.51
Source: Galtfornia State Board of Equalization; and Galifomia State Department of Finsnce
' Per the CA State Board of Equalization, fOr those categories listed as "$0", the sales 8fll induded in the "Other Retail Stores" category.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4;9;8/25/2016
Ventura State of
County California
586 32,324
676 38, 164
353 16,323
644 31, 132
187 9,798
1,085 62, 164
307 15,031
1,900 96,594
8,547 363 749
14,285 665,279
Ventura State of
County California
$3,137,563 $2, 103,280
709,046 665,837
1,938,487 1,818,296
890,399 812,322
6,460,465 5,803,285
836,524 561,708
3,701,912 3,421,668
658,391 649,899
119,649 132,198
$637,132 $604,919
836,864 38,030,609
Ventura State of
County California
0.70 0.85
0.81 1.00
0.42 0.43
0.77 0.82
0.22 0.26
1.30 1.63
0.37 0.40
2.27 2.54
10.21 9.56
17.07 17.49
Page 13 oi!Jl 8
135
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED MARKET POTENTIAL ·EXISTING CONDITIONS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK; CALIFORNIA
Households in City '
Average HH Income '
Gross Market Area Income
City Sales
Establishment Type !2013)
Home Furnishings & Appliances 16,940,000
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt 7,909,000
Food & Beverage Stores 48,247,500
Clothing & Clothing Accessories 13,496,000
General Merchandise Stores 44,933,700
Food Services & Drinking Pies 46, 165,000
Other Retail Group 38,365,000
Retail Stores Total $216,056,200
10,800
$117,600
$1,270,080,000
City City
City Sales Potential Surplus/
~· ~ !Leakaael
$17, 162, 100 $20, 732,000 ($3,569,900)
8,012,700 29,597,000 (21,584,300)
48,880,000 62,885,000 (14,005,000)
13,672,900 39,257,000 (25,584, 100)
45,522,800 51,743,000 (6,220,200)
46,770,200 54,875,000 (8, 104,800)
38,868,000 44,232,000 (5,364,000)
$218,888,700 $303,321,000 ($84,432,300)
Source: California State Board of Equalization; Bureau of Labor Statistics-CPI (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County; All Hems); DOF; CES and Claritas.
1 Based on estimates from Clarltas.
2 Sales In 2015 assume annual rate of change between 2013 and 2015 for the CPI (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County) during this period.
3 Assumes food store sales are 40% taxable.
4 Assumes general merchandise store sales are 95% taxable .
....
._prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
i..c:Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 10; 812512016
Typical Supported
Productivltv Deveiooment
$350 10,200
$400 54,000
$450 31,100
$350 73,100
$400 15,600
$400 20,300
$350 15,300
219,600
Page 14 of 33
136
TABLE 11
PROJECTED RETAIL DEMAND
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
2015
10,800
$117,600
Households in City '
Average HH Income 1
Gross Market Area Income $1,270,080,000
Establishment Type
Home Furnishings & Appliances
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt
Food & Beverage Stores
Clothing & Clothing Accessories
General Merchandise Stores
Food Services & Drinking Pies
Other Retail Group
Retail Stores Total
Incremental Demand
Home Furnishings & Appliances
Building Material & Garden Eqpmt
Food & Beverage Stores
Clothing & Clothing Accessories
General Merchandise Stores
Food Services & Drinking Pies
Other Retail Group
Retail Stores Total
Cumulative Retail Demand
City
Demand
2015
$20,732,000
29,597,000
62,885,000
39,257,000
51,743,000
54,875,000
§44 232 000
$303,321,000
10,200
54,000
31,100
73, 100
15,600
20,300
15 300
219,600
219,600
2020
11,300
$125,500
$1,418,150,000
City
Demand
2020
$22,669,000
32,363,000
70,216,000
42,926,000
56,578,000
61,272,000
~8 365 000
$334,389,000
5,200
6,500
15,300
9,800
11,300
15,000
1.LlQQ
74,200
293,800
2025 2030
11,600 11,900
$133,900 $142,900
$1,553,240,000 $1,700,510,000
City ·City
Demand Demand
2025 2030
$24,172,000 $25,570,000
34,508,000 36,505,000
76,905,000 84, 196,000
45,771,000 48,420,000
60,329,000 63,820,000
67, 109,000 73,472,000
§51 571 000 §54,555 000
$360,365,000 $386,538,000
3,800 3,300
4,700 4,100
13,000 13,300
7,100 6,200
8,200 7,200
12,800 13, 100
8 000 7 000
57,600 54,200
351,400 405,600
Source: California State Board of Equalization: Bureau of Labor Statistics-CPI (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange Coi..inty; All items); DOF; CES and Claritas.
1 Based on estimates from Claritas. Population grol/o/th projections based CA DOF estimates for Ventura County.
2 Sales in 2015 assume annual rate of change between 2010 and 2015 for the CPI (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County) during this period.
3 Assumes food store sales are 35% taxable.
4 Assumes general merchandise store sales are 95% taxable .
...,,. .
r-.Brepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
d)ilename: Moorpark Market Tables· v4; 11; 8/2512016
2035
12,200
$152,500
$1,860,500,000
City
Demand
2035
$26,771,000
38,219,000
92, 118,000
50,693,000
66,816,000
80,384,000
§57 117 000
$412,118,000
2,600
3,300
13,600
5,000
5,800
13,300
5 600
49,200
454,800
Page 15 of 33
137
......
TABLE 12
MARKET AREA RETAIL SALES SURPLUS/LEAKAGE DATA SUMMARY
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Opportunity
Three-Mlle Market Area Expenditures Salas Gap/Surplus
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $147,085,461 $30,832,241 $116,253,220
Home Furnishings/Electronic/Appliances 25, 137, 145 27,263,328 (2, 126, 183)
Building Material, Garden Equip Stores 75.489,805 105, 153, 164 (29,663,359)
Food and Beverage Stores 83,842,817 28,371,555 55,471,262
Health and Personal Care Stores 34,935,328 15,904,101 19,031,227
Gasoline Stations 61.417,850 4,040,257 57,377,593
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 36,270,886 8,761,897 27,508,989
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores 13,528,513 16,697,613 (3,169,100)
General Merchandise Stores 81,323,175 40,550,815 40,772,360
Miscellaneous Store Retailers 17,622,098 32,357,661 (14,735,563)
Non-Store Retailers 60,222,370 12,550,081 47,672,289
Foodservice and Drinking Places $72,960,561 $86,471,237 ($13,510,676)
fotalRatail Sales Incl Eating and Drliiklng Places $709,836,009 $408,953,950 $300,882,059
Opportunity
Five-Mlle Market Area Expenditures Sales Gap/Surplus
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $322,831,746 $309,084,383 $13,747,363
Home Furnishings/Electronic/Appliances 56,850,755 75,865,758 (19,015,003)
Building Material. Garden Equip Stores 169,064,597 250,215,438 (81, 150,841)
Food and Beverage Stores 187,996,461 49,465,909 138,530,552
Health and Personal Care Stores 79,667,978 31,820,251 47,847,727
Gasoline Stations 136,047,651 52,390,736 83,656,915
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 80,371.499 13,635,512 66,735,987
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores 30,527,573 28,350,515 2,177,058
General Merchandise Slores 179, 125,775 171,698,697 7,427,078
Miscellaneous Store Retailers 40,042,598 57,422,699 (17,380,101)
Non-Store Retailers 137,444.100 85,028,460 52,415,640
Foodservice and Drinking Places $166,415,313 $118,854,443 $47,560,870
Total Retail Sales Incl Eating and Drinking Places $1;586,386,046 $1,243,832,801 $342,553,245
f'V Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc .
......,. Filename: Moorpar1c: Market Tables-v4: 12; 812512016
Typical
Sales PSF
NA
$350
$400
$450
$400
NA
$350
$400
$400
$350
NA
$400
Typical
Sales PSF
NA
$350
$400
$450
$400
NA
$350
$400
$400
$350
NA
$400
Potential (SF)
NA
0
0
123,269
47,578
NA
78,597
0
101,931
0
NA
0
351,376
Potential (SF)
NA
0
0
307,846
119,619
NA
190,674
5,443
18,568
0
NA
118,902
761,052
Page 16 of 33 138
>-"
N
N
TABLE 12
MARKET AREA RETAIL SALES SURPLUS/LEAKAGE DATA SUMMARY
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Ten-Mlle Market Area
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Home Furnishings/ElectroniclAppliances
Building Material, Garden Equip Stores
Food and Beverage Stores
Health and Personal Care Stores
Gasoline Stations
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Non-Store Retailers
Foodservice and Drinkin Places
Total Retail Sales Incl Eating and Drinking Places
Source: Claritas; KMA
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 12; 8/25/2016
Expenditures
$1,384,945,511
248,400,892
742,207,757
835,317,084
357,344,733
601,342,325
347,200,010
130,781,547
789,334,897
173,985,978
597,427,201
$728,877, 171
6,937,165,106
Salas
$1,490,515,570
542,845, 140
826, 162,328
612,683,728
275,620, 177
330,078,866
403,115,215
94,299,252
767,549,895
143,497,927
1,207,773,929
$780,273,671
7,474,415,698
Opportunity Typical
Gap/Surplus Salas PSF Potential (SF)
($105,570,059) NA NA
(294,444,248) $350 0
(83,954,571) $400 0
222,633,356 $450 494,741
81,724,556 $400 204,311
271,263,459 NA NA
(55,915,205) $350 0
36,482,295 $400 91 ,206
21,785,002 $400 54,463
,30,488,051 $350 87, 109
(610,346,728) NA NA
$51,396,500 $400 0
( 537,250,592) 931,829
Page17of33
139
TABLE 13
ESTIMATED RETAIL DEMAND (SQUARE FEET OF SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Home Fumishings/Electronic/Appliances
Building Material, Garden Equip Stores
Food and Beverage Stores
Health and Personal Care Stores
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Foodservice and Drinking Places
Total (Square Feet)
Source: Claritas; KMA
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4: 13; 8125/2016
3 -Mlle
0
0
123,269
47,578
78,597
0
101,931
0
Q
351,376
5 -Miles
0
0
307,846
119,619
190,674
5,443
18,568
0
118 902
761,052
10 -Miles
0
0
494,741
204,311
0
91,206
54,463
87,109
Q
931,829
Page 18 o!32 3
140
TABLE 14
MARKET AREA RETAIL LEASE RATE COMPARABLES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Address City
-1-888 New Los Angeles
2 252 E. Los Angeles
3 302 W. Los Angeles
4 525 Los Angeles
5 476 Los Angeles
6 593 W. Los Angeles
7 6591 Collins Drive
8 7 42 New Los Angeles
9 706-790 Los Angeles
10 14701 Princeton
11 530 E. Los Angeles
12 111-165 Poindexter
13 209 W. Los Angeles
14 4215 Tierra Rejada
15 481 E. High St.
16 14711 Princeton
17 14721 Princeton
18 142-144 W. Los Angeles
19 706 Los Angeles
Lease Rate Range
Weighted Average Lease Rate
Source: LoopNet.com 2015
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4: 14; 812512016
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
SF
Property Type Asking Type Available
Neighborhood Ctr. $27.00 NNN 2,748
Retail $24.00 NNN 900
Strip Retail $35.35 NNN 975
Community Ctr. $27.00 NNN 2,816
Retail $19.20 MG 1,935
Community Ctr. $17.40 NNN 4,995
$19.80 NNN 4.9.50
$24.00 NNN 1,011
$21.00 NNN 1,170
$24.00 NNN 1,122
$24.00 NNN 2,244
Neighborhood Ctr. $18.00 NNN 9,154
Community Ctr. Neg. NNN 20,721
Community Ctr. $21.00 MG 23,224
Strip Center $15.00 NNN 6,340
Street Retail $24.00 NNN 6,240
$21.00 NNN 2,800
Retail $11.40 NNN 1,000
$12.00 NNN 1,000
Power Center $21.60 NNN 1,033
Community Ctr. $17.88 NNN 1,394
$21.00 NNN 1,382
$23.40 NNN 1,471
Street Retail $18.00 NNN 960
Neighborhood Ctr. $15.00 NNN 7,242
Neighborhood Ctr. $15.00 NNN 1,760
Strip Center $30.00 NNN 3,940
Anchor $18.00 NNN 45,022
$11.40-$35.35
$16.93
Page 19 of 33
124
141
TABLE 15
3rd QUARTER 2015 OFFICE MARKET-VENTURA COUNTY MARKET AREA
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Square Feet
Submarket (Total Inventory)
Agoura Hills 1,752,700
Camarillo 2,351,600
Conejo Valley 7,358,200
Oxnard/Port Hueneme 2,541,400
Simi Valley/Moorpark 2,359,300
Ventura 3,371,100
Central County Total 19,734,300
(1) PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG).
Source: Lee & Associates
......
N
U1
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc .
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 15; 8/25/2016
Square Feet
Vacant
403,121
507,946
816,760
335,465
478,938
289,915
2,832, 144
Vacancy Net Absorption Under Average Asking Change from
Rate YTD Construction Rent 1 Previous Qtr
23.0% (81,200) $2.03 -0.1%
21.6% (102,800) $1.64 -5.7%
11.1% 292, 100 120,900 $2.12 2.0%
13.2% 29, 100 $2.07 0.8%
20.3% (256,300) -$1.82 -0.1%
8.6% 95,600 -$1.68 1.2%
14.4% (23,500) 120,900 $1.97 0.7%
Page 20 of 33
142
TABLE 16
MARKET AREA OFFICE LEASE RATE COMPARABLES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Address City
1 530 Moorpark
2 5285 Kazuko Ct
3 209 W. Los Anglees
4 5301 N. Commerce
5 635 Los Angeles
6 301 Science Dr.
7 301 Science Dr.
8 5069 Maureen Ln
9 14711 Princeton
10 14701 Princeton
11 484 E. Los Angeles
12 609 Science Dr.
13 646 Flinn Ave.
Lease Rate Range
Wei~hted Avera~e Lease Rate
Source: LoopNet.com
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates. Inc.
Fiiename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 16; 8/25/2016
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Moorpark
Asking
Property Type Rate Type SF Available
Office $21.00 MG 3,570
Office $11.40 IG 800
Office $21.60 NNN 1,033
Office $14.40 MG 5_50
Medical Office $34.20 FSG 75,082
Office $22.20 FSG 2,938
Office $26.09 FSG 736
Office $15.00 MG 5,384
Office $15.00 NNN 7,242
Medical Office $15.00 NNN 3,832
Office $21.00 MG 2,049
Office $9.00 MG 22,100
Office $10.68 MG 4,924
$9.00 -$34.20
$25.40
Page 21 of 33
126
143
TABLE 17
POTENTIAL OFFICE DEMAND WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
2015
Real Estate/RentaULeasing
Employment 634
Change
Office Employment Percentage
Square Feet/Employee
Total Square Footage
Professional & Business Services
Employment 2,087
Change
Office Employment Percentage
Square FeeVEmployee
Total Square Footage
Finance & Insurance
Employment 1,336
Change
Office Employment Percentage
Square FeeVEmployee
Total Square Footage
Balance of Employment
Employment 19,073
Change
Office Employment Percentage
Square FeeVEmployee
Total Square Footage
Total
Employment 23, 130
Change
Total Square Footage
Total Square Footage Through Term of Projection
--Estimated Office Demand--
2020 2025 2030 2035
671 709 751 794
37 39 41 43
80% 80% 80% 80%
200 200 200 201
5,900 6,200 6,600 7,000
2,306 2,549 2,817 3, 113
219 242 268 296
80% 80% 80% 80%
200 200 200 201
35,100 38,800 42,900 47,600
1,436 1,544 1,660 1,785
100 108 116 125
80o/o 80% 8.0% 80%
200 200 200 200
16, 100 17,300 18,600 19,900
20,485 22,002 23,632 25,382
1,412 1,517 1,629 1,750
5% 5% 5% 5%
200 200 200 201
14, 100 15,200 16,300 17,600
24,899 26,805 28,859 31,073
1,769 1,906 2,054 2,214
71,200 77,500 84,400 192, 100
71,200 148,700 233, 100 325,200
Source: Projections based on California EDD emptoyment projections (2012-2022) for Ventura County . Employment Percentage and square
footage assumptiOns m"ade by KMA.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 17; 812512016 Page 22 of 33
127
144
TABLE 18
3rd QUARTER 2016 INDUSTRIAL MARKET· VENTURA COUNTY MARKET AREA
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Square Feet
Submarket (Total Inventory)
Agoura Hills/Westlake Village 2,683,900
Calabasas 632,600
Camarillo 11,535,000
Fillmore/Santa Paula 2,369,900
Newbury Park/Thousand Oaks 7,953,000
Oxnard/Port Hueneme 23,383,700
Simi Valley/Moorpark 12,081,600
Ventura 11,219,800
Central County Total 71.859,500
(1) PSF Per Month. Triple Net (NNN).
Source: Lee & Associates
,.....
N
CXl
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates. Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables· v4; 18; 8/2512016
Square Feet
Vacant
115,408
135,376
1,199,640
94,796
254,496
1,215,952
640,325
336,594
3,992,587
Vacancy Net Absorption Under Completed Average Asking
Rate YTD Construction YTD Rent 1
4.3% 99,400 . $0.93
21.4% 6,400 . $1.35
10.4% 37,400 . 92,700 $0.58
4.0% 2,600 . . $0.54
3.2% 216,200 --$0.76
5.2% 51,500 28,000 . $0.63
5.3% 377,000 . -$0.60
3.0% (56,300) . -$0.63
5.6% 734,200 28,000 92,700 $0.65
Page 23·of 33
145
TABLE19
MARKET AREA INDUSTRIAL LEASE RATE COMPARABLES
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Asking
No. Address City Property Type Rate
1 31 Poindexter
2 5146 Commerce
3 11953 Challenger Ct.
4 555 Spring Rd.
5 650 Flinn Ave.
6 709 Science
7 700 Science Dr.
8 353 Science Dr.
9 646 Flinn Ave.
Lease Rate Range
Weiahled Averaae Lease Rate
Source: LoopNetcom
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 19; 8/2512016
Moorpark Industrial Neg
Moorpark Industrial $11.04
Moorpark Industrial $10.20
Moorpark Industrial $8.40
Moorpark Industrial $12.00
Moorpark Industrial $4.68
Moorpark Industrial $4.68
Moorpark Industrial $10.80
Moorpark Industrial $10.68
$4.68 -$12.00
$4.93
Type SF Available
IG 16,383
MG 3,606
MG 11,397
NNN 3,900
MG 1,400
NNN 253,479
NNN 152,786
IG 8,470
MG 4,924
Page 24 of 33
129
146
TABLE 20
(
REGIONAL HOTEL OCCUPANCY RA TES'
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 E
2016 F
E-Estimate
F -Forecast
Simi Valley
68.9°/o
70.1%
71.2%
71.7%
72.2%
75.9%
76.7%
Average 71.7",{,
Camarillo
61.8%
64.0%
67.6%
67.8%
74.1%
74.3%
75.2%
68.3%
(1) Source: PKF "The 2016 Southern California Lodging Forecast"
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Table"s-v4; 20; 8/2512016
Thousand Oaks/
Agoura Hills
66.2%
72.9%
74.5%
74.6%
77.8%
78.4%
78.8%
74.1%
Ventura County
64.5°/o
64.4%
66.7%
68.0%
72.3%
73.7%
74.5%
68.3%
Page 25 of 33 1 3 0
147
TABLE 21
REGIONAL HOTEL AVERAGE DAILY RATE1
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Simi Valley
2010 $90.04
2011 $92.31
2012 $93.38
2013 $96.47
2014 $97 .73
2015 E $104.00
2016 F $108.68
Average $97.52
E . Estimate
F . Forecast
Camarillo
$88.30
$89.93
$90.82
$95.40
$105.24
$110.15
$114.55
$99.20
(1) Source : PKF "The 20 16 Southern CaHfomia Lodging Forecast"
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename : Moorpark Market Tables-v4 ; 21 ; 812512016
Thousand Oaks/
Agoura Hills Ventura County
$119.49 $98.21
$121 .30 $98.07
$126.11 $100 .03
$132.26 $101 .71
$143.56 $109.43
$154.56 $118 .26
$164 .14 $124.52
$137.35 $107.18
Page 26 of 33 131
148
TABLE 22
REGIONAL HOTEL ANNUAL REVPAR (occupancy x room rate)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Thousand Oaks/
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 E
2016 F
Average
E-Estmate
F -Forecast
Simi Valley Camarillo
$62.01 $54.56
$64.70 $57.52
$66.53 $61.35
$69.17 $64.65
$70.61 $78.03
$78.95 $81.82
$83.33 $86.15
$70.76 $69.15
(1) Source: PKF "The 2016 Southern California Lodging Forecast"
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 22; 812512016
Agoura Hills Ventura County
$79.07 $63.34
$88.42 $63.20
$93.99 $66.69
$98.66 $69.16
$111.66 $79.17
$121.46 $87.16
$129.40 $92.81
$103.24 $74.50
Page 27 of33 13 2
149
TABLE 23
REGIONAL HOTEL MARKET PERFORMANCE'
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Occupied Occupied
Average Annual Room Nights Room Nights ReYPar
Occupancy Daily Rate §!ml!!y Per Year Change RevPar Change
Simi Valley
2010 68.9% $90.04 207.320 142.791 $62.04
2011 70.1% $92.31 207,320 145,319 1.8°/o $64.71 4.3%
2012 71.2% $93.38 207,320 147.701 1.6°/o $66.49 2.7°/o
2013 71.7% $96.47 207.320 148.657 0.6o/o $69.17 4.0%
2014 72.2% $97.73 207,320 149,787 O.So/o $70.56 2.0%
2015 E 75.9% $104.00 207,320 157,388 5.1% $78.94 11.9%
2016 F 76.7% $108.68 207,320 158,962 1.0o/o $83.36 5.6%
CAC 2010-2016 3.19% O.OOo/o 1.80% 5.05%
Camarillo
2010 61.8% $88.30 317,550 196,213 $54.57
2011 64.0°/o $89.93 317.550 203,130 3.5% $57.56 5.5%
2012 67.6% $90.82 317,550 214,529 5.6% $61.39 6.7%
2013 67.8% $95.40 317,550 215, 199 0.3% $64.68 5.4o/o
2014 74.1% $105.24 317,550 235,427 9.4% $77.98 20.6%
2015 E 74.3% $110.15 317,550 235,900 0.2% $81.84 4.9o/o
2016 F 75.2% $114.55 316,820 238,258 1.0% $86.14 5.3%
CAC 2010-2016 4.43% -0.04o/o 3.29% 7.91%
Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills
2010 66.2% $119.49 664,300 439,555 $79.10
2011 72.9% $121.30 664,300 484,218 10.2% $88.43 11.8%
2012 74.5% $126.11 664,300 495,145 2.3% $93.95 6.2%
2013 74.6% $132.26 664,665 495,800 0.1% $98.67 5.0%
2014 77.8% $143.56 664,665 516,984 4.3% $111.69 13.2%
2015 E 78.4% $154.56 664,665 521,371 0.8% $121.18 8.5%
2016 F 78.8% $164.14 664,665 523,978 0.5°/o $129.34 6.7%
'-CAC 2010-2016 5.43o/o 0.01% 2.97% 8.54o/o
Ventura County
2010 64.5% $98.21 1,658,195 1,069,444 $63.35
2011 64.4% $98.07 1,673,890 1,078,694 0.9% $63.16 -0.3%
2012 66.?o/o $100.03 1,673,890 1, 115,862 ·3.4o/o $66.72 5.6%
2013 68.0% $101.71 1,673,890 1, 138,217 2.0o/o $69.16 3.7%
2014 72.3% $109.43 1,673,525 1,210,688 6.4% $79.12 14.4%
2015 E 73.7% $118.26 1,670,058 1,230,818 1.7% $87.16 10.2%
2016 F 74.5% $124.52 1,651,990 1;231,286 0.0% $92.77 6.4o/o
CAC 2010-2016 4.04o/o -0.06% 2.38% 6.56o/o
E -Estimate
F -Forecast
(1) Source: PKF "The 2016 Sout~em C_alffomia lodging Forecast"
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpar1< Mar1<et Tables-v4: 23: 812512016 Pageili3>Bi3
150
TABLE24
PROJECTED MARKET AREA HOTEL DEMAND
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
Potential Demand Simi Valley Market Area -2.0% Annual Increase
Annual 2.0%
Demand
Increase
2016 158,962
2021 175,507
2026 193,774
2031 213,942
2036 236,209
Existing
Room Night
Suoelv1
207,320
207,320
207,320
207,320
207,320
Market Area
Target Occupancy -70%
Occupancy Available Cumulative
Room Nights Rcioms
76.7% 227,089 54
84. ?o/o 250,724 119
93.5% 276,820 190
103.2% 305,631 269
113.9% 337,442 356
Potential Demand Simi Valley Market Area-3.0% Annual Increase
Annual 3.0% Existing
Demand Room Night Occupancy
Increase Supply' Level
2016 158,962 207,320 76.7%
2021 184,281 207,320 88.9%
2026 213,632 207,320 .103.0%
2031 247,658 207,320 119.5%
2036 287,103 207,320 138.5%
(1) Source: PKF 'The 2016 Southern California Lodging Forecast"
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Asso_ciates, Inc.
Filename:Moorpark MarketTables-v4: 24; 8/2512016
Market Area
Target Occupancy -70%
Available Cumulative
Room Nights Rooms
227,089 54
263,258 153
305,188 268
353,797 401
410,147 556
Page29of33134
151
TABLE 25
RETAIL BUILDING SALES -CITY OF MOORPARK (2014-2016)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Buildinq Tvoe Address
1 Restaurant 255 High Street
2 Retail Storefront 11-17 East High Street
3 Freestanding Retail 213 East High Street
4 Service Station 550 West Los Angeles Avenue
5 Retail (LA Spring Center) 525, 537, 549 Los Anglees
6 Retail (Moorpark Town Center) 1, 5, 101-275, 165,125 Los Angeles
7 Retail (Mission Bell Plaza)1 301-593 Los Angeles
Sale Date Year Built Sales Price RBA IS Fl
1/22/2016 1935 $615,000 1,950
11/18/2014 1975/2005 $845,000 4,500
6/16/2014 1935 $475,000 1,572
8/7/2014 1998 $2,700,000 9,551
1/16/2015 2005 $10,280,000 21,561
12/3/2014 1984-1986 $27,250,000 139,740
9/2/2015 1993-1996 $28,600,000 NA
Weighted Average
1 Includes sale of buildings and ground leases. This was an off-market transactions.
Price Per
Price/SF Land ISFl SF Land
$315.38 14,985 $41.04
$187.78 7,492 $112.79
$302.16 7,405 $64.15
$282.69 54,886 $49.19
$476.79 97,574 $105.36
$195.01 1,302,361 $20.92
NA 1,378,922 $20.74
$235.72 $24.71
Note: Sales data from 412212014 -412212016; Sales covering the City of Moorpark; Multi-property sales, non-arms length transactions and transactions without a sales price
were excluded.
Source: Costar: 4/2016
f-' w Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
U1 Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 25; 8/25/2016 152
TABLE 26
OFFICE BUILDING SALES -CITY OF MOORPARK (2014-2016)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Building Type Address
Class C Medical Office 724 Moorpark Avenue
Sale Date
8/31/2015
Price Per
Year Built Sales Price RBA (SFl Price/SF Land ISFl SF Land
1985 $725,000 2,080 $348.56 8,782 $82.56
Note: Sales data from 412212014 -412212016; Sales covering the City of Moorpark; Multi-property sales, non-arms length transactions and transactions without a
sales price were excluded.
Source: Costar: 4/2016
~ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. °' Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 26; 8/25/2016
153
TABLE 27
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SALES· CITY OF MOOPARK (2014-2016)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Building Type Address
1 Class C Manufacturing 11969 Challenger Court
2 Class B Manufacturing 5360 Commerce Avenue
3 Class C Warehouse 588 Flinn Avenue
4 Class B Manufacturing 5155 Goldman Avenue
5 Class C Distribution 5530 Tech Circle
Sale Date Year Built
6/9/2014 1990
3/18/2016 1984
10/15/2015 1977
11/13/2015 1986/2011
11/20/2015 1986
Price Per
Sales Price RBA (SF) Price/SF Land (SF) SF Land
$1,500,000 11,555 $129.81 21,780 $68.87
$4,375,000 26,982 $162.15 121,968 $35.87
$800,000 1,800 $444.44 23,087 $34.65
$6,756,500 54,052 $125.00 111,078 $60.83
$1,150,500 9,591 $119.96 21 ,349 $53.89
Weighted Average $140.24 $48.73
Note: Sales data from 412212014 · 412212016; Sales covering the City of Moorpark; Multi-property sales, non-arms length transactions and transactions without a
sales price were excluded.
Source Costar: 4/2016
...... . w Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc .
.....J Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4, 27, 8/25/2016 154
I-'
w
00
TABLE 28
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND SALES -CITY OF MOORPARK (2014-2016)
MOORPARK MARKET OPPORTUNITITES
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
No. Land Use
Commercial
Address
384 E. Los Angeles Ave
Sale Date
9/4/2015
Size IACl Size ISFl Sales Price Price Per SF
1.43 62,291 $1,600,000 $25.69
Note: Sales data from 412212014 -412212016; Sales covering the City of Moorpark; Multi-property sales, non-arms length transactions and transactions without a sales price were excluded.
Source: Costar: 4/2016
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: Moorpark Market Tables-v4; 28; trb
155
ATTACHMENT 4
156
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 488-4300
Fax:
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 1
Issuing Policies of Chicago Title Insurance Company
ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
Summer Land Partners Group, Inc
12725 Ventura Blvd.D
Studio City, CA 91604
ATTN: Manny Kozar
Email: slpg888@gmail.com
Ref: Sky Line 66
Escrow/Customer Phone: (213) 488-4300
Title Officer: Manny Castillo
Title Officer Phone: (213) 612-4108
Title Officer Fax: (213) 612-4152
Title Officer Email: manny.castillo@ctt.com
PROPERTY: VACANT LAND, MOORPARK, CA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Chicago Title Company hereby reports that it
is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and
the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien
or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed
Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set
forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less
than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or
the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA
Homeowner’s Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for
certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from
the office which issued this report.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a
policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a
policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Chicago Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska
Corporation.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of
this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered
under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not
list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
Chicago Title Company
By:
Authorized Signature
ATTACHMENT 5
157
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 488-4300
Fax:
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 2
PRELIMINARY REPORT
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2019 at 7:30 a.m.
ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
The form of policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is:
DRE
1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED
BY THIS REPORT IS:
A FEE
2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN:
SKY LINE 66, LLC., a California limited liability company
3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
158
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 3
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, IN THE COUNTY OF
VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PART OF LOT P AS THE SAME IS DESIGNATED AND DELINEATED UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED,
MAP OF A PART OF TRACT L OF THE RANCHO SIMI, IN THE CITY OF MOORPARK, COUNTY OF VENTURA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SHOWING THE TOWNSITE OF MOORPARK AND LANDS OF MADELEINE R.
POINDEXTER RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 5 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE MOST EASTERLY LINE
OF TRACT NO. 1240 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 30, PAGE 56 OF MAPS, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF
LOS ANGELES AVENUE, 60 FEET WIDE, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN ON LAST MENTIONED MAP; THENCE
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION.
1ST: NORTH 0° 04' EAST 429.99 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO.
1240, BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 44 OF SAID TRACT NO 1240; THENCE ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT,
2ND: NORTH 89° 59' 15'' WEST 470.67 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 51 OF SAID TRACT
NO. 1240; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE AND SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF.
3RD: SOUTH 0º 04' WEST 429.99 FEET TO THE SAID CENTERLINE OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE,
4TH: SOUTH 89° 59' 15'' EAST 470.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THE INTEREST CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF VENTURA BY DEED RECORDED
JUNE 6, 1889 IN BOOK 28 PAGE 190 DEEDS, AND BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 1900 IN BOOK 68 PAGE
316 DEEDS.
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 88-115140 OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN: 511-0-141-130
159
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 4
EXCEPTIONS
AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION
TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
A. Taxes, bonds and assessments not covered by this report for the fiscal year 2018-2019
Parcel No.: 511-0-141-130
Tax Area Code: 10-067
1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records.
2. This exception is intentionally deleted.
3. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Purpose: public utilities
Recording Date: December 2, 1960
Recording No: Book 1935, Page 222 Official Records
Affects: that portion of said land described therein
4. The Land described herein is included within a project area of the Redevelopment Agency shown below, and that
proceedings for the redevelopment of said project have been instituted under the Redevelopment Law (such
redevelopment to proceed only after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan) as disclosed by a document.
Redevelopment Agency: City of Moorpark
Recording Date: July 12, 1989
Recording No: 89-108897 Official Records
5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: City of Moorpark
Purpose: storm drainage and all necessary appurtenances
Recording Date: April 5, 1993
Recording No: 93-079359 Official Records
Affects: a portion of said land
6. An instrument entitled Covenant and Agreement
Executed by: Roger C. Gisler, Trustee of The Charles J. Gisler Family Trust
In favor of: City of Moorpark
Recording Date: May 21, 1997
Recording No: 97-063132 Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
This covenant and agreement provides that it shall be binding upon any future owners, encumbrancers, their
successors or assigns, and shall continue in effect until the advisory agency approves termination.
160
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
EXCEPTIONS
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 5
7. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Calleguas Municipal Water District Capital Construction Charge Agreement
Recording Date: April 19, 2000
Recording No: 2000-64962 Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
8. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document:
Granted to: Southern California Edison Company
Purpose: public utilities
Recording Date: July 25, 2000
Recording No: 2000-116854 Official Records
Affects: said land
9. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Easement Agreement
Dated: September 01, 2011
Executed by: Mission Bell West, LP, a California limited partnership and the City of Moorpark, a
municipal corporation
Recording Date: October 13, 2011
Recording No: 20111013-00152643-0 Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Amendment to Easement Agreement
Recording Date: August 08, 2016
Recording No: 20160808-00111686-0 Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Second Amendment to Easement Agreement
Recording Date: November 24, 2017
Recording No: 20171124-00152630-0 Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
10. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below,
Amount: $18,375,000.00
Dated: August 25, 2014
Trustor/Grantor Sky Line 66, LLC., a California limited liability company
Trustee: Chicago Title Company
Beneficiary: Hankey Capital, LLC, a California limited liability company
Recording Date: September 11, 2014
Recording No: 20140911-00114329-0 Official Records
161
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
EXCEPTIONS
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 6
11. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below,
Amount: $3,825,000.00
Dated: September 04, 2014
Trustor/Grantor Sky Line 66, LLC., a California limited liability company
Trustee: Chicago Title Company
Beneficiary: Hankey Investment Company, LP, a California limited partnership
Recording Date: September 11, 2014
Recording No: 20140911-00114330-0 Official Records
12. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Memorandum of Agreement
Recording Date: March 7, 2017
Recording No: 20170307-00032355-0, Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
13. Any matters which may be disclosed by an inspection, by survey and/or inquiry of the parties in possession thereof
and any rights of parties based on any unrecorded lease or leases.
PLEASE REFER TO THE “INFORMATIONAL NOTES” AND “REQUIREMENTS” SECTIONS WHICH
FOLLOW FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION.
END OF EXCEPTIONS
162
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 7
REQUIREMENTS SECTION
1. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated
upon a conveyance or encumbrance from the entity named below:
Limited Liability Company: Sky Line 66, LLC., a California limited liability company
a) A copy of its operating agreement, if any, and any and all amendments, supplements and/or modifications
thereto, certified by the appropriate manager or member
b) If a domestic Limited Liability Company, a copy of its Articles of Organization and all amendments thereto
with the appropriate filing stamps
c) If the Limited Liability Company is member-managed, a full and complete current list of members certified
by the appropriate manager or member
d) If the Limited Liability Company was formed in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence, satisfactory to the
Company, that it was validly formed, is in good standing and authorized to do business in the state of origin
e) If less than all members, or managers, as appropriate, will be executing the closing documents, furnish
evidence of the authority of those signing.
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested
documentation.
END OF REQUIREMENTS
163
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 8
INFORMATIONAL NOTES SECTION
1. No known matters otherwise appropriate to be shown have been deleted from this report, which is not a policy of
title insurance but a report to facilitate the issuance of a policy of title insurance.
For the purposes of policy issuance, items, if any, which may be eliminated on the basis of an indemnity agreement
or other agreement satisfactory to the Company are as follows:
NONE
2. Note: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand
arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company
and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance
or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of
the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your
Title Insurance coverage.
3. Notice: Please be aware that due to the conflict between federal and state laws concerning the cultivation,
distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana, the Company is not able to close or insure any transaction involving
Land that is associated with these activities.
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 27388.1, as amended and effective as of 1-1-2018, a Documentary Transfer
Tax (DTT) Affidavit may be required to be completed and submitted with each document when DTT is being paid
or when an exemption is being claimed from paying the tax. If a governmental agency is a party to the document,
the form will not be required. DTT Affidavits may be available at a Tax Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder.
END OF INFORMATIONAL NOTES
Manny Castillo/aag
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.
PRIVACY NOTICE
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies (collectively, “FNF,” “our,” or “we”) respect and are committed to
protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice explains how we collect, use, and protect personal information, when and to whom we disclose such
information, and the choices you have about the use and disclosure of that information.
Types of Information Collected
We may collect two types of information from you: Personal Information and Browsing Information.
Personal Information. FNF may collect the following categories of Personal Information:
contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address);
demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender, marital status);
identity information (e.g., Social Security Number, driver’s license, passport, or other government ID number);
financial account information (e.g., loan or bank account information); and
other personal information necessary to provide products or services to you.
Browsing Information. FNF may automatically collect the following types of Browsing Information when you access an FNF website,
online service, or application (each an “FNF Website”) from your Internet browser, computer, and/or mobile device:
Internet Protocol (IP) address and operating system;
browser version, language, and type;
domain name system requests; and
browsing history on the FNF Website, such as date and time of your visit to the FNF Website and visits to the pages within the FNF
Website
How Personal Information is Collected
We may collect Personal Information about you from:
164
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
INFORMATIONAL NOTES
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 9
information we receive from you on applications or other forms;
information about your transactions with FNF, our affiliates, or others; and
information we receive from consumer reporting agencies and/or governmental entities, either directly from these entities or through
others.
How Browsing Information is Collected
If you visit or use an FNF Website, Browsing Information may be collected during your visit. Like most websites, our servers automatically log each
visitor to the FNF Website and may collect the Browsing Information described above. We use Browsing Information for system administration,
troubleshooting, fraud investigation, and to improve our websites. Browsing Information generally does not reveal anything personal about you,
though if you have created a user account for an FNF Website and are logged into that account, the FNF Website may be able to link certain
browsing activity to your user account.
Other Online Specifics
Cookies. When you visit an FNF Website, a “cookie” may be sent to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet
browser from a web server and stored on your computer’s hard drive. Information gathered using cookies helps us improve your user experience. For
example, a cookie can help the website load properly or can customize the display page based on your browser type and user preferences. You can
choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing your Internet browser settings. Be aware that doing so may impair or limit some functionality of
the FNF Website.
Web Beacons. We use web beacons to determine when and how many times a page has been viewed. This information is used to improve our
websites.
Do Not Track. Currently our FNF Websites do not respond to “Do Not Track” features enabled through your browser.
Links to Other Sites. FNF Websites may contain links to other websites. FNF is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of any of
those other websites. We advise you to read the privacy policy of every website you visit.
Use of Personal Information
FNF uses Personal Information for three main purposes:
To provide products and services to you or in connection with a transaction involving you.
To improve our products and services.
To communicate with you about our, our affiliates’, and third parties’ products and services, jointly or independently.
When Information Is Disclosed
We may make disclosures of your Personal Information and Browsing Information in the following circumstances:
to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure;
to nonaffiliated service providers who provide or perform services or functions on our behalf and who agree to use the
information only to provide such services or functions;
to nonaffiliated third party service providers with whom we perform joint marketing, pursuant to an agreement with them to
jointly market financial products or services to you;
to law enforcement or authorities in connection with an investigation, or in response to a subpoena or court order; or
in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with legal process or applicable laws, or to protect the rights, property,
or safety of FNF, its customers, or the public.
The law does not require your prior authorization and does not allow you to restrict the disclosures described above. Additionally, we may disclose
your information to third parties for whom you have given us authorization or consent to make such disclosure. We do not otherwise share your
Personal Information or Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as required or permitted by law.
We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, Browsing Information, and any other information, in connection with the sale or other
disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets, or in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership, or an assignment
for the benefit of creditors. By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you expressly agree and consent to the use
and/or transfer of the foregoing information in connection with any of the above described proceedings.
Please see “Choices With Your Information” to learn the disclosures you can restrict.
Security of Your Information
We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to guard your Personal Information. We limit access to nonpublic personal information
about you to employees who need to know that information to do their job. When we provide Personal Information to others as discussed in this
Privacy Notice, we expect that they process such information in compliance with our Privacy Notice and in compliance with applicable privacy laws.
Choices With Your Information
165
PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company
YOUR REFERENCE: Sky Line 66 ORDER NO.: 00067618-997-BS5-MM7
INFORMATIONAL NOTES
(Continued)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 10
If you do not want FNF to share your information with our affiliates to directly market to you, you may send an “opt out” req uest by email, phone, or
physical mail as directed at the end of this Privacy Notice. We do not share your Personal Information with nonaffiliates for their use to direct market
to you.
Whether you submit Personal Information or Browsing Information to FNF is entirely up to you. If you decide not to submit Personal Information or
Browsing Information, FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.
For California Residents: We will not share your Personal Information and Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted
by California law.
For Nevada Residents: You may be placed on our internal Do Not Call List by calling (888) 934-3354 or by contacting us via the information set
forth at the end of this Privacy Notice. Nevada law requires that we also provide you with the following contact information: Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, 555 E. Washington St., Suite 3900, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Phone number: (702) 486-3132;
email: BCPINFO@ag.state.nv.us.
For Oregon Residents: We will not share your Personal Information and Browsing Information with nonaffiliated third parties for marketing
purposes, except after you have been informed by us of such sharing and had an opportunity to indicate that you do not want a disclosure made for
marketing purposes.
For Vermont Residents: We will not share information about your creditworthiness to our affiliates and will not disclose your personal information,
financial information, credit report, or health information to nonaffiliated third parties to market to you, other than as permitted by Vermont law,
unless you authorize us to make those disclosures.
Information From Children
The FNF Websites are meant for adults and are not intended or designed to attract persons under the age of eighteen (18).We do not collect Personal
Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13) without permission from a parent or guardian.
International Users
FNF’s headquarters is located within the United States. If you reside outside the United States and choose to provide Personal Information or
Browsing Information to us, please note that we may transfer that information outside of your country of residence for any of the purposes described
in this Privacy Notice. By providing FNF with your Personal Information and/or Browsing Information, you consent to our collection, transfer, and
use of such information in accordance with this Privacy Notice.
FNF Website Services for Mortgage Loans
Certain FNF companies provide services to mortgage loan servicers, including hosting websites that collect customer information on behalf of
mortgage loan servicers (the “Service Websites”). The Service Websites may contain links to both this Privacy Notice and the mortgage loan servicer
or lender’s privacy notice. The sections of this Privacy Notice titled When Information is Disclosed, Choices with Your Information, and Accessing
and Correcting Information do not apply to the Service Websites. The mortgage loan servicer or lender’s privacy notice govern s use, disclosure, and
access to your Personal Information. FNF does not share Personal Information collected through the Service Websites, except (1) as required or
authorized by contract with the mortgage loan servicer or lender, or (2) as required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary
to comply with a legal process or applicable law, to enforce this Privacy Notice, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of FNF or the public.
Your Consent To This Privacy Notice; Notice Changes
By submitting Personal Information and/or Browsing Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of the information in accordance
with this Privacy Notice. We may change this Privacy Notice at any time. The revised Privacy Notice, showing the new revision date, will be posted
on the FNF Website. Each time you provide information to us following any amendment of this Privacy Notice, your provision of information to us
will signify your assent to and acceptance of the terms of the revised Privacy Notice for all previously collected information and information
collected from you in the future. We may use comments, information or feedback that you submit to us in any manner that we may choose without
notice or compensation to you.
Accessing and Correcting Information; Contact Us
If you have questions, would like to access or correct your Personal Information, or want to opt-out of information sharing for affiliate marketing,
send your requests via email to privacy@fnf.com, by phone to (888) 934-3354, or by mail to:
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
601 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Chief Privacy Officer
166
Notice of Available Discounts
Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries
(“FNF”) must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a
preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consu mer’s
right to be charged the field rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts.
You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These
discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for
each discount. These discounts only apply to transaction involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice
only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling.
FNF Underwritten Title Company FNF Underwriter
CTC - Chicago Title Company CTIC - Chicago Title Insurance Company
Available Discounts
CREDIT FOR PRELIMINARY REPORTS AND/OR COMMITMENTS ON SUBSEQUENT POLICIES (CTIC)
Where no major change in the title has occurred since the issuance of the original report or commitment, the order may be reopened
within 12 months and all or a portion of the charge previously paid for the report or commitment may be credited on a subsequent
policy charge within the following time period from the date of the report.
DISASTER LOANS (CTIC)
The charge for a lender’s Policy (Standard or Extended coverage) covering the financing or refinancing by an owner of record, within
24 months of the date of a declaration of a disaster area by the government of the United States or the State of California on any land
located in said area, which was partially or totally destroyed in the disaster, will be 50% of the appropriate title insurance rate.
CHURCHES OR CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (CTIC)
On properties used as a church or for charitable purposes within the scope of the normal activities of such entities, provided said
charge is normally the church’s obligation the charge for an owner’s policy shall be 50% to 70% of the appropriate title insurance rate,
depending on the type of coverage selected. The charge for a lender’s policy shall be 40% to 50% of the appropriate title ins urance
rate, depending on the type of coverage selected.
EMPLOYEE RATE (CTC and CTIC)
No charge shall be made to employees (including employees on approved retirement) of the Company or its underwritten, subsidiary
title companies for policies or escrow services in connection with financing, refinancing, sale or purchase of the employees’ bona fide
home property. Waiver of such charges is authorized only in connection with those costs which the employee would be obligated to
pay, by established custom, as a party to the transaction.
167
Attachment One (6-5-14) CA & NV
ATTACHMENT ONE
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY – 1990
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting,
regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any
improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any
parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or
governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect,
lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of
Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from
coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without
knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the
estate or interest insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure
of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured
mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the
interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records
of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or
which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which
are not shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or
title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public record s.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.
CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)
ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.
2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does
not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.
3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.
4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records;
b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date ;
168
Attachment One (6-5-14) CA & NV
c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.
5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.
6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and
b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.
7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state
insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws.
8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16:
1.00% % of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or
$2,500.00 (whichever is less) $ 10,000.00
Covered Risk 18:
1.00% % of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or
$5,000.00 (whichever is less) $ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 19:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or
$5,000.00 (whichever is less) $ 25,000.00
Covered Risk 21:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or
$2,500.00 (whichever is less) $ 5,000.00
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees,
or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating,
prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the
coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13
or 14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgag e.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business
laws of the state where the Land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured
Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.
6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the tr ansaction creating the
lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.
7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy
and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under
Covered Risk 11(b).
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,
the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
(Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,( t(or T)his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’
fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:
169
Attachment One (6-5-14) CA & NV
(PART I
(The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from
Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings,
whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that
may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and
complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or
title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.
PART II
In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Company insures against loss or
damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:)
2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees,
or expenses that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating,
prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the
coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and
10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.
4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, th at the transaction vesting the
Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.
5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy
and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,
the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:
(The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from
Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings,
whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that
may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and
complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or
title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.
7. (Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R’s, etc. shown here.)
170
Attachment One (6-5-14) CA & NV
ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (12-02-13)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, atto rneys’ fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating,
prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the
coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c),
13(d), 14 or 16.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business
laws of the state where the Land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured
Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the
coverage provided in Covered Risk 26.
6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the
Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This
Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.
7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of
Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.
8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with
applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.
9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, t hat the transaction creating the
lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.
10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
171
172
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-01 FOR A
CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (C-2) TO VERY HIGH RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (VH) FOR
A 69 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION CENTER, AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AT 635 LOS ANGELES AVENUE, ON THE
APPLICATION OF MENASHE KOZAR FOR SKY LINE 66, LLC
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, applications for General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 were
filed by Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC, for the construction of a 69 unit multi-
family residential condominium development, including a recreation center and
associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2020-647, recommending to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and
conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-
01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020 the City
Council considered the agenda report for General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 and
any supplements thereto and written public comments, opened the public hearing and
took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal, and reached a
decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any
comments received during the public review process and determined that there is no
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The City Council finds and declares
as follows:
A. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the project are
complete and have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and the City CEQA Procedures.
B. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council.
173
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 2
SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS: The City Council finds
and declares as follows:
A. A commercial demand study was prepared and concluded that
commercial use development was not viable, in favor of residential development on the
subject property.
B. The proposed Project will help to increase the variety of housing types
within the City and will provide affordable housing units in furtherance of the City’s
Housing Element.
SECTION 3. ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Negative
Declaration as proposed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein for the
proposed development of a 69 unit multi-family residential condominium, including a
recreation center and associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles
Avenue is hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: General Plan
Amendment No. 2014-01 is approved, amending the General Plan Land Use Map as
proposed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone
Change No. 2014-01 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2014-03,
whichever occurs last.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of
original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 2020.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Exhibit B: Proposed General Plan Designation
174
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
175
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 I Fax (805) 532-2540 I www.moorparkca.gov
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
On the basis of an initial study, and in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of
Regulations, the City of Moorpark has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. Attached is the Initial Study
documenting the reasons to support the finding of no significant effect on the environment.
I. PROJECT
Project Title: Green Island Villas
Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02; Zone Change No. 2014-01;
General Planned Amendment No. 2014-01; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869
for Condominium Purposes; and Development Agreement No. 2014-03
Address: 635 Los Angeles Avenue (north of Los Angeles Avenue, east of Shasta Avenue)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-141-130
Parcel Size: 4.01 acres
Applicant: Menashe "Manny" Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC
Owner: Sky Line 66, LLC
General Plan Designation: General Commercial (C-2)
Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Density Residential (VH15U/AC)
Zoning: Commercial Office (C-0)
Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Development (RPD17.2/AC)
Responsible or Trustee Agencies: The County of Ventura and California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans)
Project Description: The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential
condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse, day-
care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated landscape
and hardscape site improvements on a previously-developed 4.01-acre lot. The project includes 16
two-story residential buildings, with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units.
Each unit will include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking spaces will be
dispersed throughout the site. Amenities include a tot-lot, recreational center with a multi-purpose
room and gymnasium, and a swimming pool. Primary street access to the property is provided by
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 4
176
California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the
east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center.
11. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
State law requires the lead agency for the proposed project, to prepare an Initial Study to
determine if the proposed project could significantly impact the environment. Based on the findings
contained in the attached Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
111. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN INITIAL STUDY:
None.
IV. PUBLIC REVIEW
Document Posting and Comment Period: July 2, 2019 and August 6, 2019
The Initial Study was previously circulated and made available to the public and responsible
agencies. Three comment letters were subsequently received from the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District; California Department of Transportation; and Ventura County Watershed
Protection. None of the comments received resulted in changes to the Initial Study.
V. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Prior to approving
the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency must consider this Negative Declaration
and all comments received on the Initial Study. Those decision-makers may approve a Negative
Declaration if they determine that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its
aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Karen Vaughn, AICP
Community Development Director
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 5
177
N
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
| Fax (805) 532-2205
INITIAL STUDY
Green Island Villas
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA Guidelines as revised, in
accordance with Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Entitlements: Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02; Zone Change No.
2014-01; General Planned Amendment No. 2014-01; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869 for
Condominium Purposes; and Development Agreement No. 2014-03
Location/Address: 635 Los Angeles Avenue (north of Los Angeles Avenue, east of Shasta
Avenue)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 511-0-141-130
Parcel Size: 4.01 acres
Applicant: Manny Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC
Owner: Sky Line 66, LLC
Existing General Plan Designation: General Commercial (C-2)
Proposed General Plan Designation: Very High Residential Density Residential (VH)
Existing Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (C-O)
Proposed Zoning Designation: Residential Planned Development (RPD)
Responsible or Trustee Agencies: The County of Ventura and California Department
of Transportation (CalTrans)
Tribal Consultation Requested: YES NO
Has any California Native American Tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1?
Resolution No.
2020-_____
Page 6
178
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 2 of 34
Project Description: The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential
condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse,
day-care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, dog park and associated
landscape and hardscape site improvements on a previously-developed 4.01-acre lot. The
project includes 16 two-story residential buildings, with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51
three-bedroom units. Each unit will include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking
spaces will be dispersed throughout the site. Amenities include a tot-lot, recreational center with
a multi-purpose room and gymnasium, and a swimming pool. Primary street access to the
property is provided by California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will
have secondary access to the east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The unimproved 4.01-acre lot is located on the north
side of Los Angeles Avenue. The Mission Bell Plaza shopping center is located to the east and
single-family homes are located to the north and west. The following table provides an overview
of existing land use designations on the subject property and vicinity.
EXISTING LAND USES
Location Existing General
Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Existing
Land Use
Site General Commercial
(C-2)
Commercial Office
(C-O) Vacant Lot
North
Medium Density
Residential
(4DU/AC)
Single Family Residential
(R-1-8)
Detached Single Family
Homes
South
High Density
Residential
(7DU/AC)
Residential Planned Development
(RPD 7U/AC) Vacant Lot
East General Commercial
(C-2)
Commercial Planned
Development
(CPD)
Mission Bell Plaza
Shopping Center
West
Medium Density
Residential
(4DU/AC)
Single Family Residential
(R-1-8)
Detached Single Family
Homes
Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative Impacts:
The methodology used to analyze the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project
in the Initial Study was the list approach, pursuant to Section 15130(b)(1)(A) of the CEQA
Guidelines. The list approach identifies all past, present, and probable future projects
contributing to the related or cumulative impacts. The following pending and recently approved
projects located within a five-mile radius of the proposed project have been evaluated for this
Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 7
179
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 3 of 34
Pending and Recently Approved Projects within the City of Moorpark
Number Project Land Use Size
Status
1 Pacific Communities Single Family Residential 284 Units Approved
2 Hitch Ranch Single Family Residential /Multi-Family
Residential 755 Units Proposed
3
Aldersgate Senior Housing Senior Housing Units 390 Units
Approved
4 City Ventures Single Family Residential 110 Units Approved
5 John C. Chiu, FLP-N Single Family Residential
Condominiums 60 Units Proposed
6 Essex Moorpark Multi-Family Residential 200 Units Approved
7 Birdsall Group, LLC Single Family Residential 21 Units Approved
8 Spring Road, LLC Condominiums 95 Units Approved
9 West Pointe Homes Single Family Residential 133 Units Proposed
10 Moorpark Hospitality
(Fairfield Inn) Hotel 108
Rooms
Under
Construction
11 Triliad Development Movie Studio 37 acres Approved
EXHIBIT 1
VICINITY MAP
Location Map
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 8
180
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 4 of 34
Aerial Map
Site Plan
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 9
181
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 5 of 34
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
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: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made 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 “potentially
significant unless mitigated” 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.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially 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.
___________________________________ February 14, 2020
Freddy A. Carrillo
Associate Planner ll
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 10
182
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 6 of 34
Initial Study Checklist
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? In urbanized areas, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning
and/or 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?
Discussion:
a) The subject property is not located within a scenic viewshed, as identified in Figure 8 of the
General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element. Furthermore, the project
is not located near a horizon line, as identified in General Plan – Horizon Lines (Exhibit 17).
Therefore, the project will have no impact on a scenic vista.
b) The subject property is not located within a designated state scenic highway. The project will
remove 23 mature trees to accommodate the proposed development. Pursuant to City
policy and uniformly applied development conditions, a Protected Tree Report prepared by
Paul A. Lewis, dated September 15, 2014, was submitted to establish the value and
condition of the trees to be removed. Conditions of approval are imposed so that the value
of the removed trees will be applied to enlarge the size of proposed landscaping on the
project site. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact related to scenic
resources.
c) The project site is located within an urbanized area and complies with all development
standards and aesthetic requirements applicable to the proposed RPD zoning designation.
Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to scenic quality.
d) Uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed on the project, including compliance
with applicable lighting regulations of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Chapter 17.30).
Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on daytime or nighttime views
in the area.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 11
183
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 7 of 34
Source(s): Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Land Use Element
(1992), Moorpark Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning and General Plan - Horizon Lines (Exhibit
17).
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES/FORESTRY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 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?
Discussion:
a) Pursuant to Exhibit 6 of the General Plan – Important Farmlands Inventory Map and the 2006
Ventura County Important Farmland Map, the subject property and vicinity are not identified
as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide. Therefore, the proposed
project will have no impacts on agricultural resources.
b) The subject property is not zoned for agriculture or commercial farming, nor is it subject to a
Williamson Act Agreement. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on any
existing agricultural zoning or properties secured by the Williamson Act.
c) The subject property is a vacant lot surrounded by urban uses. It is not zoned for forest land
or timberland as identified in the Public Resources Code, or timberland production identified
in the Government Code. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on forest land
or timberland.
d) No forest land exists on the project site, therefore no impacts to or conversion of forest land
would occur.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 12
184
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 8 of 34
e) Pursuant to Exhibit 6 of the General Plan and the Ventura County Important Farmland Map
referenced above, the subject property is surrounded by urban uses and is not within the
vicinity of designated farmland or forests. Therefore, the proposed development of the
subject property will not result in the conversion of farmland or forests.
Source(s): Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), California Department of
Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2006). General Plan - Important
Farmlands Inventory (Exhibit 6).
III. AIR QUALITY
The City of Moorpark and the proposed
project are located within the jurisdiction
of the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District (VCAPCD). The
VCAPCD has established significance
criteria to evaluate air quality impacts.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 nonattainment 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?
Discussion:
a) Uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed on the project, including compliance
with all existing requirements of the VCAPCD. Accordingly, the proposed project will be
developed in a manner consistent with the VCAPCD Air Quality Management Plan and will be
required to follow the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Rules and
Regulations for permitting, development and operation and receive all required permits.
Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on the implementation of the air quality
plan.
b) Staff consulted with the VCAPCD during review of the entitlement and calculated the
projected emissions associated with the project using California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod). Potential impacts to air quality associated with the proposed development are
classified as either long-term operational impacts or short-term construction impacts. The
VCAPCD establishes thresholds of 25 pounds-per-day (ppd) for emission of reactive organic
compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for long-term operational impacts. The
VCAPCD’s 25 ppd thresholds for ROG and NOx do not apply to construction emissions. An
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 13
185
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 9 of 34
analysis of both construction and operational-related impacts associated with the project are
provided below:
Long-term Operational Impacts: Based on an analysis of operational air quality impacts
reported by CalEEMod, The operational emissions resulting from the project is projected to
be 4.21 ppd ROC and 2.74 ppd NOx. These modelled emissions do not exceed the threshold
and therefore, impacts to air quality anticipated with the project are less than significant.
Short-term Construction Impacts: Short-term impacts to air quality will likely result from
grading and other construction activities associated with the project (e.g., earth-moving and
heavy equipment vehicle operations). According to the VCAPCD, any combustion equipment
on-site that is rated at 50 horsepower or greater must have either an APCD Permit to
Operate (PTO), or be registered with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Portable
Equipment Registration Program (PERP). The applicant is responsible for contacting APCD
to verify compliance with any permitting requirements of the APCD. Based on an analysis of
air quality impacts reported by CalEEMod, air quality impacts associated with the
construction of the project result in maximum daily emissions estimate of 78.93 ppd ROC and
45.62 ppd NOx. As stated previously, the VCAPCD has not established thresholds for
construction emissions. Nevertheless, for construction impacts, VCAPCD requires that
construction activities minimize fugitive dust through dust control measures required by Rule
55. Rule 55 includes methods such as securing tarps over truck loads and watering to treat
bulk material to minimalize fugitive dust. Compliance with Rule 55 would ensure that
construction emissions would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public or
that may endanger the comfort, health or safety of any such person or the public. Air quality
impacts due to construction emissions would be less than significant.
c) The subject property is located approximately 1,200 feet to the southwest of Chaparral
Middle School. No other sensitive receptors are located within the vicinity. The Uniformly
applied conditions of approval applicable to new developments requires that proposed project
comply with the VCAPCD Air Quality Management Plan and VCAPCD Rules and
Regulations for permitting, development and operation and receive all required permits.
Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impact on expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d) The proposed multi-family residential development does not include any facilities that are
likely to create unusual emissions or odors. Therefore, no impacts related to odors are
proposed.
Source(s): Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines (2003), California Air Resources Board, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 14
186
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 10 of 34
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on the
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?
Discussion:
a) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map, there are no sensitive
habitat areas identified on or near the subject property. Additionally, the project site is located
within an urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial and residential developments.
Therefore, the project will not have an impact or 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.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 15
187
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 11 of 34
b) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map, there are no identified
riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities on or in the vicinity of the subject
property. Furthermore, the subject property is not located within the wildlife corridor shown in
the County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map. Therefore, t he
project will not have an impact on substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) The subject property is not located within state or federally protected wetland. Therefore, t he
project will not have an impact on substantial adverse effect on the 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) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map there are no
sensitive natural community or sensitive natural community identified on or near the subject
property. Furthermore, the subject property is not located within the wildlife corridor shown in
the County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map. Therefore, the
project will not have an impact 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) Pursuant to Exhibit 18 of the General Plan - Biological Resource Map there are no biological
resources located on or in the vicinity of the subject property. 23 mature trees are proposed
to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Pursuant to City policy and
uniformly applied development conditions, a Protected Tree Report prepared by Paul A.
Lewis, dated September 15, 2014, was submitted to establish the value and condition of the
trees to be removed. Conditions of approval are imposed so that the value of the removed
trees will be applied to enlarge the size of proposed landscaping on the project site.
Therefore, the project is designed and conditioned to comply with all applicable ordinances
and policies related to biology and natural resources and would have a less than significant
impact.
f) The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Source(s): County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map
(https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/HCWC/Tierra_Rejada_CWPA.pdf). General Plan -
Biological Resource Map (Exhibit 18). Protected Tree Report prepared by Paul A. Lewis (Dated
September 15, 2014). Natural Community Conservation Plan
(https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline).
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 16
188
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 12 of 34
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
a) The subject property has been previously disturbed and is currently a vacant lot
surrounded by urban uses developed within the past 30 years. Furthermore, the subject
property is not identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of
Interest as historic. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources are proposed.
b) The subject property and vicinity are not identified as a unique archaeological resources.
However, archaeological and cultural resources have been discovered during other
development within the City and uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed
that require cultural and/or archaeological monitoring of all subsurface work to be
performed during grading and earthmoving activities associated with construction of the
project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to any
potential archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
c) The proposed project is not located within a cemetery. However, archaeological and
cultural resources have been discovered during other development within the City and
uniformly applied conditions of approval will be imposed that require cultural and/or
archaeological monitoring of all subsurface work to be performed during grading and
earthmoving activities associated with construction of the project. Therefore, the
proposed project will be less than significant impact to any potential human remains on
the project site.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits. Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of
Interest (October 14, 2014).
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to a wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction, or operation?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 17
189
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 13 of 34
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion:
a) Construction will utilize conventional methods and equipment. The proposed project would
result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips and electricity. Best Management Practices
(BMP) would be required to prohibit the entry of pollutants from the construction site into the
storm drain system during construction. Therefore, the proposed project will result in less than
significant impact regarding consumption of energy resources, during project construction, or
operation.
b) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable state and local regulations
related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards of the California Energy Code. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than
significant impact on the state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
VII. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) 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 known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) 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?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 18
190
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 14 of 34
VII. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-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 waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or an
unique geologic feature?
Discussion:
a) (i) Pursuant to Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the proposed project is not
located within a known earthquake fault. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact or
potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving an earthquake fault.
(ii) Pursuant to the Earthquake Shaking Potential for California map, the proposed project is
located between minor and major active earthquake faults that can have an impact on seismic
ground shaking. All new construction is required to comply with the California Building Code,
which includes measures to minimize damage to structures and occupants related to seismic
events. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than a significant impact regarding risk of
loss, injury, or death involving seismic ground shaking.
(iii) Pursuant to the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – Moorpark Quadrangle, the
subject project is located within a liquefaction zone. However, based on the Geotech Report, the
likelihood that surface effects of liquefaction would occur on the subject property is
characterized as very low to non-existent. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction present is less
than significant impact.
(iv) Pursuant to the Landslide Hazard Mapping for Selected California Highway Corridors
Phase 2, the subject property is not located within a landslide zone. Therefore, no impact will
result from the proposed project.
b) The construction of the project would result in ground surface disturbance during site
clearance and grading. Uniformly applied conditions of approval imposed on the project require
stockpiles, excavation, and exposed soil to be covered with secured tarps, plastic sheeting,
erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilize. Furthermore, applicant will
be required to obtain a California State Water Resources Control Board Construction General
Permit, which requires development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Therefore, the subject property will have a less than significant impact on soil erosion, or the
loss of topsoil.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 19
191
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 15 of 34
c) Pursuant to the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – Moorpark Quadrangle, the
subject project is located within a liquefaction zone. Geotechnical measures will be incorporated
into the project design as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act as a uniformly applied
condition of approval. As a result, development of the subject property will have a less than
significant impact on 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) According to the Geotech Report, the proposed project may be located on expansive soil.
Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on expansive soil.
e) The project will be served by existing wastewater facilities and no septic tanks or systems are
proposed. Therefore, no impact on the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
f) The subject property is within a developed, urban area and has previously been disturbed.
No existing unique geological features are known to exist on-site. Furthermore, a conditions of
approval for new development will require the monitoring of all subsurface work by a qualified
archaeologist or Native American monitor and a Paleontological Identification Report be
prepared if a resource or feature is identified. Therefore, development of the subject project
presents a less than significant impact on directly or indirectly destroying a unique
paleontological resource or site or an unique geologic feature.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), Nobel System Geoviewer (City’s
GIS), U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California
Map (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/MS_48.pdf ). Earthquake Zones of
Required Investigation – Moorpark Quadrangle
(http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOORPARK_EZRIM.pdf). Landslide Hazard
Mapping for Selected California Highway Corridors Phase 2
(ftp://ftp.conservation.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_243/SR_243_sans_Plates.pdf)
Advance Geotechniques - Geotech Report for 635 Los Angeles Avenue
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion:
a) Potential Carbon Dioxide Equivalent greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) associated with the
project were modeled using CalEEMod. The VCAPCD has not yet adopted a threshold of
significance for GHG emissions. To assist in the analysis, the South Coast Air Quality
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 20
192
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 16 of 34
Management District (SCAQMD) GHG threshold recommendation was used in this analysis.
The most recent proposed thresholds issued in 2008 applicable to this project suggest that it
would be appropriate for a lead agency to use a threshold of 3,000 million tons per year (MTPY)
of CO2e for stationary sources. CalEEMod modeling of the proposed project estimates a
preliminary emissions rate of 229.37 MTPY CO2e for stationary sources. Therefore, the
projected impacts to greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project are anticipated to be
less than significant.
b) The California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan describes the approach California will take
to reduce GHGs to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The
proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and therefore would have no impact.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003). California Air
Resources Board, Scoping Plan (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm),
South Coast Air Quality Management District – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for
Stationary Sources (2008) (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2).
IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials 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 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?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 21
193
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 17 of 34
IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion:
a) through c) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and
associated site improvements that will not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials. Therefore, the proposed project will not be releasing hazardous material into the
environment nor does it present a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
d) According to the Department of Toxic Substance Control, the subject property is not identified
on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project.
e) The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, or where such plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Furthermore, the
proposed project site is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and
consists of infill development of a vacant lot. T herefore, no impacts will result from the
proposed project.
f) The subject property is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists
of infill development of a vacant lot. The project site has direct access along State Highway
118, a five-lane thoroughfare. Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) The subject property is an infill lot surrounded by developed urban uses. Therefore, the
proposed project will have no impacts on exposing people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Safety Element
(2001). Department of Toxic Substance Control – EnviroStor (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov).
X. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 22
194
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 18 of 34
X. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?;
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?
Discussion:
a-b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality because the Federal Water Pollution
Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act or CWA) requires that discharges do not
substantially degrade the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.
Specifically, Section 402 established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Regulations for wastewater and other pollutant discharges. Congress amended the
CWA in 1987 to require the implementation of a two-phased program to address storm water
discharges. The Phase II regulations became effective on February 7, 2000, and require
NPDES permits for storm water discharges from regulated small MS4s and for construction
sites disturbing more than 1 acre of land.
In addition, Section 401 and 404 established regulations for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States and water quality impacts associated with these
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 23
195
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 19 of 34
discharges. In California, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes waste
discharge standards pursuant to the Federal NPDES program, and the state has the authority to
issue NPDES permits to individuals, businesses, and municipalities.
The protection of water quality is under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB is a state regulatory agency whose purpose is to protect the
quality of surface and ground water within the region for beneficial uses. In order to address
specific issues of the various groundwater basins in the State, the SWRCB is divided into nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), one for each of the major groundwater
basins/surface water flow systems in the State. The City of Moorpark falls within the jurisdiction
of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The RWQCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of
point sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives through the Water Quality
Control Plan for the local basin (Basin Plan). Water quality objectives are established based on
the designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin.
There are few uses of groundwater in the City of Moorpark. The development will utilize County
water services and therefore, will not adversely impact the groundwater conditions. However,
the impact of increased impermeable surface will decrease groundwater recharge.
Implementation of the Project would involve clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building
construction, and landscaping activities, which could result in the generation of water quality
pollutants such sediment, solid and sanitary waste, concrete truck washout, hydrocarbons,
metals, and construction debris. In addition, grading activities loosen and unconsolidated soils,
which easily erode and could result the sedimentation of surface waters. Vertical construction
and landscaping will general addition pollutants including soluble solids, sediment, nutrients,
various toxics, pathogens, thermal stress, oil and grease, and gross pollutants and floatable.
These materials have the potential to adversely affect water quality.
As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the
Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Additionally, runoff from under
post-development conditions could contain pollutants in the absence of protective or avoidance
measures. The Project’s potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during short-term construction and/or long-term operational activities can have an
adverse impact on- and off-site.
Implementation of the State of California Construction General Permit, the County MS4, and the
City Grading Ordinance during grading and post construction/LID measures permanently, will
reduce the risk to less than significant with mitigation.
i-ii) The site mass grading activities, removal of native vegetation, and the increased
impervious surfaces will increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation on- and off-site.
Uniformly applied conditions of approval require a complete hydrology and hydraulics report as
part of the site development in conjunction with a Water Quality Report and approved by the
City in order to verify compliance with established criteria and best practices. The reports and
plans will include temporary (during construction) and permanent measures with native, drought
resistant plants can be implemented based on the State of California Construction General
Permit, the County MS4, and the City ordinances and requirements during grading and post
construction/ LID measures permanently, that will reduce the risk of erosion and siltation to less
than significant with mitigation.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 24
196
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 20 of 34
iii-iv) The proposed project will alter the landform and concentrate drainage to the existing
streets and storm drain pipes. The effects of increased impervious surface area will would
increase stormwater runoff and potentially result in downstream flooding and degraded water
quality. A site-specific hydrology study will be prepared to evaluate whether the Project would
result in a substantial change in the rate or amount of runoff exiting the site. An increase in the
rate or amount of runoff from the site could result in increased potential for flooding on
downstream properties. The site will be required to intercept a 100-year developed flow rate,
and provide suitable detention that restricts flows to a undeveloped 10 year event from the site
or into the storm drain system. In addition, a dry access lane will be provided in the streets for
emergency first responders. Water Quality report will be prepared to address all pollutants of
concern and suitable mitigation in accordance with the County MS4 Permit and applicable State
requirements. The reports and proposed improvements will demonstrate that historic drainages
are not adversely impacted.
The reports and plans will identify all associated hazards and appropriate mitigations. The
mitigation measures will be implemented based on the State of California Construction General
Permit, the County MS4, and the City ordinances and requirements that will reduce the risk of
substantial increase in rate or amount of surface runoff as well as adverse impacts of pollutants
of concern to less than significant with mitigation.
d-e) The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project site is;
however, located in an area that is between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods, also
known as the moderate flood hazard area.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), National Flood Hazard Layer
FIRMette (FEMA Flood Map).
XI. LAND USE & PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion:
a) The subject property is located within an urban, residential and commercial area and consists
of infill development of a vacant lot. Therefore, the proposed project will not physically divide an
established community and is consistent with adjacent uses.
b) Pursuant to Exhibit 4 of the General Plan – Planning Area Land Use Plan, the subject
property is vacant. The current zoning of this property is Commercial Office and the General
Plan designation is Commercial Office. The proposed project will require a Zone Change
(Commercial Office to Residential Planned Development), and General Plan Amendment
(Commercial Office to Very High Residential Density). With approval of the general plan
amendment and zone changes, the site will comply with all applicable land use regulations and
therefore no impact is proposed.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 25
197
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 21 of 34
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Land Map and
Zoning Map. General Plan – Planning Area Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4)
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion
a) Pursuant to the Geologic Map of California – Los Angeles Sheet, the subject property has
alluvium derived predominantly from sedimentary rocks. The proposed project will not create
a unique demand on available mineral resources in the City, since the project site is not
located in an area of importance for mineral deposits. Therefore, the proposed project will
have no impact on mineral resources.
b) Pursuant to the Mineral Land Classification Map, the subject property is not located in a
significant mineral deposit area. Therefore, the subject property will have no impact on the loss
of availability of a locally important mineral resource.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan - Open Space,
Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986). Mineral Land Classification Map
(ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_145/SR_145_Plate1-11.pdf), Geologic Map of
California (Los Angeles Sheet)
(ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/gam/GAM_008_Los_Angeles/GAM_008_Map_1969.pdf ).
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 26
198
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 22 of 34
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion:
a) Construction activities would generate ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project from
active construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. However, all
noise sources would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. All
construction activities would be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance, which
allows construction to occur between 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project.
b) Construction activities would generate noise and groundborne vibration from active
construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. However, all noise
sources would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. All
construction activities would be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance, which
allows construction to occur between 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
c) The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or airport land use
plan, or where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located within an urban, residential
and commercial area and consists of infill development of a vacant lot. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated from the proposed project.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014). City of Moorpark - Noise
Ordinance.
XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through an extension of roads or other infra-
structure)?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 27
199
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 23 of 34
XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion:
a) According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the current population of
Moorpark is estimated at 37,027 (DOF 2019) with a forecasted population of 43,000 for the
year 2040 (SCAG 2016-2040). The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse
condominium homes and a recreational facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot.
Based on the DOF estimate of an average of 3.34 persons per household in the City of
Moorpark, the addition of 69 units would generate approximately 230 residents. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would increase the City’s estimat ed existing
population of 37,027 to 37,257, which would still be within SCAG’s 2040 population forecast
of 43,000 (SCAG 2040). Impacts relating to substantial population growth would be less
than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project will have a beneficial impact of helping to
achieve housing goals in support of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Therefore,
the proposed project will result less than significant impact on the unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
b) The subject property is currently vacant. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace
numbers of existing people or housing and no impact would occur.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014). Department of Finance
(http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/). Southern California
Association of Government – 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecasting.aspx).
General Plan - Housing Element.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES*
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 28
200
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 24 of 34
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES*
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Other public facilities?
Discussion:
a) Fire protection services are provided to the City of Moorpark through an agreement with the
County of Ventura Fire Protection District. Funds are provided to the district through a fire
protection tax on property tax bills. The project site is located approximately 4,050, feet from
the nearest fire station (297 High Street). The proposed project would not impact service
response time to the point that would require the alteration/expansion of existing fire facilities
or the construction of new facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than
significant impact on fire protection services.
b) The Moorpark Police provides police services to the City of Moorpark through a contract with
the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. Funds are provided to the property tax and sales
revenue. The project site is located approximately 4,730, feet from the police station (610
Spring Road). In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives, development fees and property taxes will be paid to fund required
police protection facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant
impact on police protection services.
c) The Moorpark Unified School District has 15 school sites within the City of Moorpark,
including 4 preschools, 5 elementary schools, 1 K-8 school, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools
and 1 alternative to high school. The increase of population may increase student enrollment.
Funding for new school facilities generally occurs through the district’s assessment of
development fees, which will be paid to the District prior to development. Therefore, the
proposed project will be a less than significant impact on school services.
d) There are presently 19 parks within the City of Moorpark, totaling 150 acres. Facilities at
these sites include picnic areas, ball fields, dog park, skatepark, restrooms and parking.
Although on-site amenities, such as a tot-lot, recreational center and a swimming pool are
included in the proposal, additional development fees will be paid to fund increase park
space and offset impacts to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project
will post no impact on park facilities.
e) The City of Moorpark has one public library, which is open Monday to Sunday. The project
site is approximately 3,340 feet away from the public library (699 Moorpark Avenue).
Although the proposed project may increase the use of this facility, additional library fees will
be paid to offset any impacts to library services. Therefore, the proposed project will have a
less than significant impact on public facilities.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 29
201
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 25 of 34
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014).
XVI. RECREATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
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?
Discussion:
a) There are presently 19 parks within the City of Moorpark, totaling 150 acres. According to
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Moorpark provides 4.1 acres of park land for every
1,000 residents. Facilities at these sites include picnic areas, ball fields, dog park, skatepark,
restrooms and parking. On-site amenities, such as a tot-lot, recreational center and a
swimming pool are proposed with the project site and additional development fees will be
paid to offset the potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the
proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
b) The proposed project includes a tot-lot, recreational center and a swimming pool. The
applicant will also be required to pay appropriate parks impact fees. Therefore, the proposed
project will have a less than significant impact.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Open Space,
Conservation, and Recreation Element (1986). Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2019).
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation, including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways, and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 30
202
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 26 of 34
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
use (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
substantially decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
Discussion:
a) According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the goals and policies emphasize
the need for a circulation system that is capable of serving both existing and future residents
while preserving community values and character. Pursuant to Figure 2 of the General Plan
Circulation Element – Los Angeles Avenue is considered to be a six-lane arterial. The
primary access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue with a secondary
access from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot. A uniformly applied condition
of approval will require the developer to pay Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to
fund core improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic
Mitigation Fee to fund street improvements and offset any potential impacts associated with
development of the project. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this project.
b) Pursuant to General Plan - Circulation Element; Level of Service (LOS), Policy 2.4: All new
development shall participate in a transportation improvement fee program. This fee enables
circulation improvements to be funded by new development in a manner that maintains the
performance objectives specified in Policy 2.1. The proposed project will not reduce the Level
of Service (LOS) of intersections in the area. The primary access to the site will be provided
from Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) with a secondary access from the Mission Bell Plaza
shopping center parking lot. A condition of approval will require the developer to pay Traffic
Mitigation and Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee in effect at the time to fund core
improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee in
order to fund street improvements. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this
project.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 31
203
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 27 of 34
c) The project is not located within an area regulated by an airport land use plan and therefore
will not have an impact to air traffic patterns, traffic levels, nor results in substantial safety
risks. Therefore, no impact will occur for the proposed project.
d) The project has been designed in a manner that eliminates any potential hazardous design
features. In addition, Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. conducted a trip generation
assessment for this project and concluded a full traffic study would not be needed.
Furthermore, uniformly applied conditions of approval will require the California Department
of Transportation (CalTrans) to review accessibility to the subject property at Los Angeles
Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in the
increase of hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
e) The circulation plan for the proposed project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and
City Engineer to ensure that sufficient access is provided for emergency services.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated from the project.
f) As designed and conditioned, the project complies will all applicable policies and plans
related to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Pursuant to Figure 2 of the General
Plan Circulation Element – Los Angeles Avenue is considered to be a six-lane arterial. The
primary access to the site will be provided from Los Angeles Avenue with a secondary
access from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot. A condition of approval will
require the developer to pay Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fee to fund core
improvements to the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, and the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee to
fund street improvements. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur for this project.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014), General Plan Circulation
Element (1992). Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (Trip Generation Assessment for the
635 Los Angeles Avenue Residential Project, 2018). General Plan - Circulation Element.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
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:
i) 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
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 32
204
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 28 of 34
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) 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.
Discussion:
a) (i) The subject property is not 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. Furthermore, the subject property in vicinity is not
identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest. Therefore,
the proposed project will have no impact on the adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource.
(ii) The subject property is not 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. Furthermore, the subject property in vicinity is not
identified in the Ventura County Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest. Therefore,
the proposed project will have no impact on the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.
Sources: California Register of Historical Resources (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/).
XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater
drainage, electrical 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?
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 33
205
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 29 of 34
XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 waste
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
a) The project will not require construction of any new water or wastewater treatment facilities
that will result in a significant impact to the environment. The project site is located in an area
planned for residential development and existing water and wastewater treatment facilities
have been sized to accommodate the proposed project. Uniformly applied conditions of
approval for new development will require the provision of a “Will Serve” letter from both the
water and wastewater purveyors. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than
significant impact in the relocation or construction of a new water or wastewater treatment
facility.
b) Ventura County Waterworks District Number 1 is the agency responsible for providing water
to the city. Approximately 75 percent of the water supplied to the district comes from the
Calleguas Municipal Water District and the remaining 25 percent comes from local
groundwater supplies. Uniformly applied conditions of approval for new development will
require the provision of a “Will Serve” letter from both the water and wastewater purveyors.
Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in water supply.
c) The proposed project will be located within an urbanized area and connect to a publicly
maintained wastewater treatment system. An uniformly applied conditions of approval will
require the applicant to submit a “Will Serve” letter from from both the water and wastewater
purveyors 1. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on this
project.
d) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational
facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. Therefore, the project will not generate
excessive solid waste.
e) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational
facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will comply with federal,
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 34
206
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 30 of 34
state, and local waste management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. Therefore, no impact will result from this project.
Sources: Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014),
XX. WILDFIRE
If project is located in or near a state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion:
a) through d) According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, the subject project is not
located in or near a state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones. Therefore, no impacts related to wildfire are will result from development of the proposed
project.
Sources: Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (2007)
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 35
207
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 31 of 34
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
a) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational
facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not 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 rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed
project.
b) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational
facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not have impacts that
are individually limited or cumulatively considerable. Therefore, no impact will result from the
proposed project.
c) The proposed project consists of 69 townhouse condominium homes and a recreational
facility on a previously developed 4.01 acre lot. The proposed project will not have
environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. Therefore, no impact will result from the proposed project.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 36
208
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 32 of 34
REFERENCES
1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo
2. California Air Resource Board, Scoping Plan (2006)
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
3. California Air Resources Board, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2
4. California Building Standards Code (2016)
5. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California (Los Angeles
sheet) (1981)
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/gam/GAM_008_Los_Angeles/GAM_008_Map_19
69.pdf
6. California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification Map (2011)
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_145/SR_145_Plate1-11.pdf
7. California Department of Conservation, Ventura County Important Farmland Map
(2006).
8. California Department of Conservation, Landslide Hazard Mapping for Selected
California Highway Corridors Phase 2 (2019)
9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Community Conservation Plan
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline
10. California, Department of Finance
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/
11. California Register of Historical Resources
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
12. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Biological Resource Map
13. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Circulation Element (1992)
14. City of Moorpark, General Plan – Housing Element (2014)
15. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Land Use Element (1992)
16. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Noise Element (1998)
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 37
209
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 33 of 34
17. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element
(1986)
18. City of Moorpark, General Plan - Safety Element (2001)
19. City of Moorpark, Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2019)
20. City of Moorpark, Moorpark Municipal Code
21. City of Moorpark - Noise Ordinance.
22. County of Ventura Tierra Rejada Critical Wildlife Passage Area Map
23. Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor (Date management system).
www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov
24. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California Map
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/MS_48.pdf
25. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – Moorpark Quadrangle
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOORPARK_EZRIM.pdf
26. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (2007)
27. Green Island Villas, Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014)
ftp://ftp.conservation.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_243/SR_243_sans_Plates.pdf
28. Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., Trip Generation Assessment for the 635 Los
Angeles Avenue Residential Project (2018).
29. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (FEMA Flood Map)
30. Southern California Association of Government – 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecasting.aspx
31. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Interim CEQA GHG Significance
Threshold for Stationary Sources (2008) (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2).
32. U.S. Geological Survey, Quarternary Faults and Folds Database
33. U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database
34. Ventura County, Historical Landmarks and Point of Interest (October 14, 2014).
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 38
210
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 34 of 34
35. Ventura County Watershed Protection District: Technical Guidance Manual for Storm
water Quality Control Measures (2002)
36. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines (2003)
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 39
211
Ventura County
Air Pollution
Control District
669 County Square Dr
Ventura , California 93003
tel 805/ 645-1400
fa x 805/ 645 -1444
www.vca pcd .org
VENTURA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Freddy Carrillo , City of Moorpark Planning
DATE: July25 ,2019
FROM : Nicole Collazo, Planning Division
SUBJECT: Public Review Comment for Green Villa Islands
Michael Villegas
Air Pollution Control Officer
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration (IS, ND) for the project referenced above. The proposed project is for a new
residential development in previously developed 4.0 I-acre vacant lot. The project location is 635
Los Angeles A venue in the City of Moorpark. The Lead Agency for the project is the City of
Moorpark. APCD is acting as a Commenting Agency and is providing recommendations and
comments to environmental document prepared by the Lead Agency, pursuant to the California
CEQA State Guidelines Section 15073 and Section l. l of the Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines (AQAG).
GENERAL COMMENTS
As a Commenting Agency for the CEQA review of the subject project, APCD concurs with the
findings determined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sections of the IS and
ND. However, the following sections of the IS checklist require some attention, as listed below.
Item l-Page 8, Item a. The environmental document did not conduct a consistency analysis with
the most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) adopted. The proposed project must
address consistency with the APCD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) if estimated
operational emissions exceed 2 lbs ./day or greater for ROG or NOx, as described in the District's
AQAG , Section 4.2 , Procedures for Determining Cons istency with the AQMP.
The 2016 AQMP presents Ventura County 's strategy (including related mandated elements) to
attain the 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2020 , as required by the federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 ari.d applicable U .S. EPA clean air regulations. The 2016 AQMP uses an
updated 2012 emissions inventory as baseline for forecasting data, SCAG RTP 2016 data, and
CARB 's EMFAC2014 emission factors for mobile sources. The 2016 AQMP uses SCAG 2016
RTP population growth projection of 40 ,806 by 2020 for the City of Moorpark. The latest
population estimation for the City of Moorpark was 39 ,223 (March 2019 , County of Ventura
RMA). An incon s istency with the AQMP would impl y an additional 1,583 residents would
relocate to the City of Moorpark as a result of this project alone. Using the proposed number of
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 40
212
units of the project (69) and the average number of residents per dwelling unit of 3.45 (County
RMA March 2019 Jurisdictions Report), and assuming all of the residents of proposed project
are not residents of the city, the population will grow by about 238 residents. This projection is
less than the amount needed to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the project will be
consistent with the AQMP and population growth forecasts.
Item 2-Page 9, Short-Term Construction Impacts. As previously recommended in an informal
consultation with the Lead Agency, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and lengthy
construction time, we recommend all off-road construction equipment to be of Tier 3 rating and
ROC content of architectural coatings to be used for the construction phase to be of low to zero-
VOC (0-25 g/L ROC); this may reduce your construction emissions by about 85% to below
threshold levels and can be remodeled in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 for a more accurate
mitigation quantification. Additionally, including more accurate information regarding the
proposed type and amount of construction equipment into the air emissions model than the
default input settings may further reduce the construction emissions.
Item 3-Page 16, GHGs. The interim South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG
numerical threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 Metric Tons of C02e per Year (MT/Yr
C02e). The 3,000 MT/Yr C02e numerical threshold applies to residential/commercial sources.
Please make this change in item a.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your project's IS and ND and provide recommendations.
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 645-1426 or email nicole@vcapcd.org.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 41
213
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7-OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING
100 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 Making Conservation
a California Way of Life. PHONE (213) 897-0067
FAX (213) 897-1337
TIY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 1, 2019
Freddy A. Carrillo
City of Moorpark, Community Development Department
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Freddy A. Carrillo:
RE: Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND)
-Green Island Villas
SCH# 2019079018
GTS# 07-VEN-2016-00308
Vic. VEN-118/ PM 17.07
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the above referenced project. The project consists of a request
to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums, a two-story recreational center proposed to
include a community clubhouse, day-care, fitness center and restrooms, an outdoor swimming
pool, dog park and associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a previously-
developed 4.01-acre lot, at 635 Los Angeles Avenue. A two-car garage will be included with each
unit and a total of 35 surface guest parking spaces will be dispersed throughout the site for a total
of 173 parking spaces. Primary street access to the property is provided by California State Route
118 (Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the east, through the
adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center.
After reviewing the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Caltrans has the following comments:
1. Primary street access to the property is provided by SR-118 (Los Angeles Ave.), which
generally runs in an east-west direction and is located just south of the Project Site. SR-
118 (Los Angeles Ave.) is a six-lane arterial; however, the segment of SR-118 adjacent
to the project site consists of two travel lanes in each direction.
2. Since the proposed project would increase the population at the project site as well as
the overall population in Moorpark community, an increase in traffic volume on SR-118 is
anticipated. Please include the Trip Generation Assessment conducted by Gibson
Transportation Consulting, Inc. referenced in the Initial Study in your response so that it
can be reviewed. If the study assumes that occupants of the development will not be
using the state transportation system, please provide Caltrans with a more detailed
justification on why a full traffic study is not needed.
3. As required by SB 743, Caltrans is moving towards replacing Level of Service (LOS)
with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) when evaluating traffic impacts. For any future
project we encourage the Lead Agency to develop a verifiable performance-based VMT
criteria.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California's economy and livability"
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 42
214
Freddie A. Carrillo
August 1, 2019
Page2 of3
a. Senate Bill 7 43 (2013) mandates that CEQA review of transportation impacts of
proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as
the primary metrics in identifying impacts for all future development projects.
You may reference to The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (QPR) for
more information: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/guidelines/.
b. Developing a verifiable performance VMT criteria is critical as the TIS will be
based on VMT metrics.
4. There are multiple references to the developer paying into a "Los Angeles Avenue Area
of Contribution Fee" throughout the Initial Study. Los Angeles Avenue is a State Route
(SR-118) through the project area and within Caltrans' Right of Way. If these funds are
being used to improve the corridor and mitigate transportation impacts, then please
share these details with Caltrans, as a high level of collaboration will be required for any
improvements on SR-118.
5. Please provide full details on the driveway layout access to and from SR-118.
6. As the project is adjacent to Caltrans Right of Way and will require driveway construction
and access directly onto SR-118, multiple Caltrans permit and design approvals will be
required.
7. Any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use
of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation
permit. We recommend large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.
8. Please also provide a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).
Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits for
the project site, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for
review and approval by City staff. The CTMP would include street closure information, detour
plans, haul routes, staging plans, parking management plans and traffic control plans. The
CTMP would formalize how construction would be carried out and identify specific actions that
would be required to reduce adverse effects on the surrounding community. The CTMP should
be based on the nature and timing of the specific construction activities and account for other
concurrent construction projects near the project site. The following elements shall be
implemented, as appropriate:
• Schedule construction activities to reduce the effects on traffic flows on surrounding
arterial streets during peak hours.
• Obtain the required permits for truck haul routes prior to issuance of any permit for the
project.
• The project contractor shall identify and enforce truck haul routes deemed acceptable by
the City and Caltrans for construction trucks.
• Signs shall be posted along roads identifying construction traffic access or flow
limitations due to single lane conditions during periods of truck traffic, if needed.
• Accommodate all equipment and worker parking on-site to the extent feasible.
• Provide safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as
alternate routing and protection barriers.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California's economy and livability"
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 43
215
Freddie A. Carrillo
August 1, 2019
Page3of3
• Provide for temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to the
public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag men).
• Schedule construction-related deliveries to reduce travel during commuter peak hours.
• We recommend approval from Caltrans for any lane closures during construction period.
• We recommend the design of all construction underneath the State Route and Caltrans
Right of Ways be approved by Caltrans.
• Permits from Caltrans will be required for heavy trucks and machinery/vehicles travelling
on the State Route.
Further information included for your consideration;
Caltrans seeks to promote safe, accessible multimodal transportation. There are multiple
methods to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to vehicles. These methods include the
construction of physically separated facilities such as sidewalks, raised medians, refuge islands,
or a reduction in crossing distances through roadway narrowing. Visual indicators such as, but
not limited to, pedestrian and bicyclist warning signage, flashing beacons, crosswalks, signage,
and striping should be used to indicate to motorists that they can expect to see and yield to
pedestrians and people on bikes. Visual indication from signage can be reinforced by road
design features such as narrow lane widths, landscaping, street furniture, and other design
elements.
With regards to parking, Caltrans supports reducing the amount of parking whenever possible.
Research on parking suggests that abundant car parking enables and encourages driving.
Research looking at the relationship between land-use, parking, and transportation indicates
that the amount of car parking supplied can undermine a project's ability to encourage public
transit use. For any project to better promote public transit and reduce vehicle miles traveled,
we recommend the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.
If you have any questions, please contact project coordinator Anthony Higgins, at anthony.hi~9Jfls~'.dgl.ca.gov and refer to GTS# 07-VEN-2016-00308.
/ /./ .·
. / /j ;.w~Nd,
IGR/CEQA Branch t.fv
cq: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
"Provide a safe. sustainable. integrated and ejficient transportation system
to enlumce California's economy and limbility"
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 44
216
PUBLIC
VENTURA COUNTY
WORKS
WATERSHED PROTECTION
WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION
800 South Victoria Avenue , Ventura , California 93009
Sergio Vargas , Deputy Director -(805) 650-4077
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July23 ,2019
TO: Freddy Carrillo Case Planner
City of Moorpark
FROM: Nathaniel Summerville , Engineer Ill -Advanced Planning Section
SUBJECT: GREEN ISLAND VILLAS
APN(s) 511 -0-141-130
ZONE 3
WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT NUMBER : WC2019 -0052
INCOMPLETE
Pursuant to your request dated July 5 , 2019 , this office has reviewed the submitted
materials and provides the following comments :
PROJECT LOCATION:
635 Los Angeles Ave ., Moorpark , CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of a request to develop 69 multi-family residential condominiums ,
a two-story recreational center proposed to include a community clubhouse , day-
care , fitness center and restrooms , an outdoor swimming pool , dog park and
associated landscape and hardscape site improvements on a 4 .01-acre unpaved lot,
at 635 Los Angeles Avenue . The project would include 16 two-story residential
buildings , with a total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. Each unit
would include a two-car garage. A total of 35 surface guest parking spaces would be
dispersed throughout the site . Amenities would include a recreational center with a
multi-purpose room and gymnasium , and a swimming pool. Primary street access to
the property would be provided by California State Route 118 (Los Angeles Avenue)
and residents would have secondary access to the east , through the adjacent Mission
Bell Plaza shopping center .
APPLICATION COMPLETENESS:
INCOMPLETE -from our area of concern .
WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMENTS:
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 45
217
Green Island Villas
July 23 , 2019
Page 2 of 2
Comments from Advanced Planning Section:
The project is located immediately adjacent to Moorpark Storm Drain No . 2 , which is a
Ventura County Watershed Protection District (District) Jurisdictional red line channel. The
project proponent is hereby informed that it is the District's standard that a project cannot
impair, divert , impede, or alter the characteristics of the flow of water running in any
District jurisdictional red line channel under the requirements of Ordinance WP-2 . Please
be aware that Moorpark Storm Drain No . 2 has been identified as having limited flood
carrying capacity and no increase in peak runoff will be allowed. The Project must provide
adequate mitigation measures to comply with the District's standard for peak attenuation ,
which is that the runoff after development shall not exceed the peak flow under existing
conditions for any frequency of event or, alternatively , apply the city standard ; whichever
is most restrictive shall apply . Analysis should consider the 100-year, 50-year, 25-year,
and 10 -year design storm frequencies .
Additionally , project findings should verify compliance with the Ventura County
Watershed Protection District hydrology data and the 2017 Hydrology Manual and follow
the Watershed Protection District "Guide for Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Report " found
at following website:
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/WPD/onestop/guidelines/Guide%20for%20Hydra.pdf
Please submit a complete Drainage Report that , at a minimum, includes the following
items :
• Sign and Seal from Licensed Engineer
• Figures/Hydrology Maps
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations
• Stormwater Calculations
• Mitigation Measures
• Offsite Flows
• Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices
• FEMA Maps
• Storm Drainage Plan (showing outlets and complete storm drain network)
WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS:
Mitigation: The proposed development shall incorporate mitigation measures to address
cumulat iv e impacts due to the proposed in crease in imperviousness . Project shall not
increase peak storm runoff in any frequency of storm events consistent with District pol icy
and WP-2 Ordinance or , alternatively , apply the city standard ; whichever is most
restrictive shall apply .
END OF TEXT
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 46
218
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner II
DATE: October 22, 2019
SUBJECT: Green Island Villas Initial Study and Negative Declaration:
Summary of Comments Received and Staff Response
The Green Island Villas Initial Study and Negative Declaration was circulated for public
review between July 2, 2019 and August 6, 2019. Three comment letters were
subsequently received from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; California
Department of Transportation; and Ventura County Watershed Protection District. None
of the comments received resulted in changes to the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration (IS/ND).
These comments and Staff's response to each are provided below.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
Comment: The environmental document needs to include analysis using the 2016
Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In addition, include the South
Coast Air Quality Management District greenhouse gas numerical threshold for
residential sources of 3,000 Metrics Tons per year {MTPY) of carbon dioxide equivalent
(C02e). Lastly, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and lengthy construction
time, VCAPCD recommends all off-road construction equipment to be Tier 3 rating and
reactive organic compounds (ROC) content of architectural coating to be used for
construction phase to be low to zero-volatile organic compounds (VOC) (0-25 g/L ROC).
• The IS/ND did not identify any significant air quality impacts associated with the
project, however a condition of approval is included that requires off-road
construction equipment to be Tier 3 rating and ROC content of architectural
coating to be used for construction phase to be low to zero-VOC (0-25 g/L
ROC). The Applicant will also be required to obtain permits from VCAPCD. No
changes to the project resulted from this comment.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
Comment: Caltrans has requested a copy of the revised Trip Generation Assessment
report conducted by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., and a site plan showing full
details on the driveway layout access to and from Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118).
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 47
219
• Staff submitted a copy of the revised Trip Generation Assessment report and site
plan showing full details of the driveway layout. The Applicant will also be
required to obtain Caltrans permit and design approvals, and submit a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for the review and approval of
Caltrans.
Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD)
Comment: The VCWPD has concerns on the flow of water running into the District's
Moorpark Storm Drain No. 2 red line channel. This storm drain has been identified as
having limited flood carrying capacity. Also, the project finding should verify compliance
with the VCWPD hydrology data and 2017 Hydrology Manual and follow the Watershed
Protection District "Guide for Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Report".
• Staff has added a condition of approval to obtain permits required by the VCWPD
prior to issuance of a building permit. No changes to the project are proposed
and no significant hydrology/water quality issues have been identified in the
IS/ND.
Resolution No. 2020-_____
Page 48
220
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 49
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Very High Residential Density (VH)
221
ATTACHMENT 7
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO.
2014-01, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (C-O) TO RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD 17.2U) FOR A 69 UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION CENTER, AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 635 LOS
ANGELES AVENUE
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, applications for General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 were
filed by Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC, for the construction of a 69 unit multi-
family residential condominium development, including a recreation center and
associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2020-647, recommending to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and
conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-
01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020, the City
Council considered the agenda report for Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential
Planned Development No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869 and any
supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took
and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal, and reached a
decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and adopted the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project referenced above and determined that there is no
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in
the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written public testimony, the City
Council makes the following findings in accordance with the City of Moorpark, Municipal
Code Section 17.44.050:
A. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed General
Plan land use designation.
222
Ordinance No. ____
Page 2
B. The proposed zoning designation is intended for residential development
characterized by multiple family attached units and apartment and condominium
buildings.
C. The proposed zoning designation would support the development of
residential uses with on-site recreational amenities, and be located in close proximity to
major community facilities, business centers and major arterials.
SECTION 2. ZONING MAP: The Zoning Map described and referenced in
Chapter 17.12 of the Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Moorpark is
hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
(30) days after its passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original
ordinances of said City; shall make a written record of the passage and adoption thereof
in the minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and
adopted; and shall publish notice of adoption in the manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2020.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Proposed Zoning Designation
223
Ordinance No. ____
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD 17.2U)
224
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2014-02
AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5869 FOR A
69 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION CENTER, AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 635 LOS
ANGELES AVENUE, ON THE APPLICATION OF
MENASHE KOZAR FOR SKY LINE 66, LLC
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, applications for General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 were
filed by Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC, for the construction of a 69 unit multi-
family residential condominium development, including a recreation center and
associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2020-647, recommending to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and
conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-
01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020, the City
Council considered the agenda report for Residential Planned Development No. 2014-
02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869 and any supplements thereto and written
public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony
both for and against the proposal, and reached a decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above together with any
comments received during the public review process and determined that there is no
significant evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect
on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2020-___, adopting a Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01 and introducing Ordinance No. ___, approving Zone Change No. 2014-01,
for the project referenced above.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
225
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 2
SECTION 1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the
information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written
public testimony, the City Council makes the following findings in accordance with City
of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.040:
A. The site design, including structure locations, size, height, setbacks,
massing, scale, architectural style and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the
goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as proposed to be
amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 and Zone Change No. 2014-01, in
that the proposed project will provide multi-family condominiums as well as deed-
restricted affordable housing in a design that is both comparable in scale with
surrounding residential and commercial development.
B. The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility
of properties, structures or uses in the surrounding area in that adequate provision of
public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured in the
processing of this request and the use proposed is similar to adjacent uses, and access
to or utility of those adjacent uses are not hindered by this project.
C. The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the
surrounding area in that the project uses landscaped setbacks to isolate it from
neighboring properties visually. As a denser, but less-intense category of residential
use, it would not tend to create disturbances regardless of the physical context.
SECTION 2. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT FINDINGS: Based upon the information
set forth in the staff report(s) and accompanying maps and studies the City Council has
determine that the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5896, with imposition of the
attached Special Conditions of Approval, meets the requirements of California
Government Code Section 66474, in that:
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City’s
General Plan as proposed to be amended by General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, in that it would allow for the provision of a variety of housing types
as well as affordable housing in a design that is both compatible in scale
with surrounding residential and commercial development.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan as proposed to be amended by General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01, in that they will provide a variety of housing types as well as
affordable housing in a design that is both compatible in scale with
surrounding residential and commercial development.
C. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of residential development
proposed in that the site can be engineered to allow for all required utilities
to be brought to the site, adequate ingress and egress can be obtained, and
the site can be provided with public and emergency services.
226
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 3
D. The Project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development at 17.2 units per acre, in that the project complies with all
applicable development standards and design requirements of the Municipal
Code.
E. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the Project site was previously
graded and an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that no
significant environmental impacts are likely to result from the development
and occupancy of the Project.
F. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not cause
serious public health problems, in that adequate sanitation is both feasible
and required as a condition of this development.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
the property within the proposed subdivision, in that full access to and from
Los Angeles Avenue and Mission Bell Plaza shopping center easement has
been incorporated into the design of the Project.
SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: The City Council approves:
A. Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 5869, subject to the Standard and Special Conditions of Approval
included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the approval of
Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869 shall be concurrent with the effective date of the Ordinance for Zone Change No.
2014-01 and the Ordinance for Development Agreement No. 2014-03, whichever
occurs last.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk shall certify to
the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the
book of original resolutions.
227
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 2020.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Standard and Special Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869
228
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2014-02 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5869
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions and
Planned Developments as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2009-2799 (Exhibit
E), except as modified by the following Special Conditions of Approval. In the event of
conflict between a Standard and Special Condition of Approval, the Special Condition
shall apply.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 2014-02 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5869:
1. This planned development permit will expire two (2) years from the date of its
approval unless the use has been inaugurated by issuance of a building permit
for construction. The Community Development Director may, at his/her
discretion, grant up to two (2) additional one-year extensions for use inauguration
of the development permit, if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas
and if the applicant can document that he/she has diligently worked towards use
inauguration during the initial period of time. The request for extension of this
planned development permit shall be made in writing, at least thirty (30) days
prior to the expiration date of the permit and shall be accompanied by applicable
entitlement processing deposits.
2. This subdivision will expire three (3) years from the date of its approval. The
Community Development Director may, at his/her discretion, grant up to two (2)
additional one-year extensions for map recordation, if there have been no
changes in the adjacent areas and if the Applicant can document that he/she has
diligently worked towards Map recordation during the initial period of time. The
request for extension of this Map shall be made in writing, at least thirty (30) days
prior to the expiration date of the map and shall be accompanied by applicable
entitlement processing deposits.
3. This permit is granted for the plans on file with the Community Development
Department. The project shall conform to these plans, except as otherwise
specified in these conditions, or unless a permit adjustment or modification to the
plans is submitted and approved.
4. Landscaping must be consistent with the City’s Landscape Guidelines, ensuring
plant species are capable of effective screening where appropriate, and suitable
to the demands of slope conditions and growth rates. A landscaping and
irrigation plan, subject to the review and approval of the Parks and Recreation
229
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 6
Director, Police Department, and Community Development Director must be
submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall submit an Arborist’s Report
to the City identifying all existing trees on-site at the time of the original
application for entitlements that will be or have been removed as a result of the
proposed development and assessing a value based upon their size and
condition. Developer shall revise landscape plans to reflect the manner in which
the value of removed trees will be applied to enlarge the size or number of
proposed trees on-site, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
6. An 8-foot high soundwall plan is required along the perimeter of the Project site.
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for grading, developer shall submit a
soundwall plan. Location, design, colors, material and height of all wall and
interior fences shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
7. There shall be no parking on the main driveway, or along interior drive aisles.
“No Stopping at Any Time” signs shall be installed or curbs painted red at the
sole cost of the applicant to the satisfaction of the Ventura County Fire
Prevention District and the City Engineer/Public Works Director.
8. Prior to Final Map approval and recordation, a declaration of Covenant,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney. The CC&Rs
shall prohibit residents and guest parking in the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza
parking lot.
9. Prior to Final Map approval, Homeowners Association (HOA) Covenant,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) with a parking and landscaping
maintenance agreement shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. The HOA landscape maintenance agreement shall
identify and require the common area landscaping, and an easement to
exclusively maintain the trees within the individual yards along the north, east,
and westerly property lines in perpetuity.
10. As part of building permit application submittal, Sheet L1.0 (Landscape Plan)
shall be revised to identify that the perimeter trees will be exclusively maintained
by the Homeowners Association. Plans shall also depict an exterior gated point
of access to each residential yard for HOA maintenance purposes.
11. All remainder areas not designated for resident use or vehicular maneuvering
shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained by the Facility Operator or
Homeowners Association as common area subject to the review and approval of
the Community Development Director.
230
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 7
12. Final building colors and materials must be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
13. Windows facing south, west and east of the project are required to have a
minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40.
14. Durable materials are required for trim on the ground floor levels of the homes,
such as wood window trim, or ¼” minimum cementous stucco coat over foam.
15. The upper-level rear elevations of the buildings along the south property line
(adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue) shall include finishes and treatments to ensure
a high-quality visual aesthetic as viewed from the public right-of-way. This can
include trim around windows, color/material changes, etc. Prior to issuance of
building permits, Applicant shall revise elevations to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
16. Any proposed change to the Architecture shall be considered by the Community
Development Director upon filing of a Permit Adjustment application and
payment of the fee in effect at the time of application.
17. LED street lights shall be used within the project, to be owned and maintained by
the Facility Operator or Homeowners Association. Design of street lighting shall
be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City
Engineer/Public Works Director to ensure consistency with future LED street
lighting to be used in the City.
18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for
review and approval by the Community Development Director and Police
Department that demonstrates compliance with the City’s Lighting Ordinance.
19. Standards for patio covers and trellises are to be included in the Homeowners
Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director.
20. All off-road construction equipment is required to have a Tier 3 rating, and the
reactive organic compound (ROC) content of architectural coating to be used for
construction phase is to be of low to zero- volatile organic compounds (VOC) (0-
25 g/L ROC).
21. Prior to issuance of permits for foundation and vertical construction, Developer
shall obtain the Community Development Director’s approval of a phasing plan
detailing the construction and occupancy schedule for all streets, residential
buildings, and common amenities to ensure that adequate facilities are provided
for future residents if phased occupancy of the units is proposed.
22. Developer shall provide proof of recordation of the Final Map prior to issuance of
a building permit for foundation and vertical construction.
231
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 8
23. Developer shall install and maintain functional fire hydrants on-site prior to the
stock or storage of any construction materials on-site.
24. Developer shall contract with a Native American monitor to be present during all
subsurface grading, trenching or construction activities on the project site. A
copy of the contract for these services shall be submitted to the Planning
Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permits. The
monitoring report(s) shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to approval of
final building permit signature.
25. Prior to issuance of grading or building permit, Applicant shall provide a “Will
Serve” letter from water and wastewater purveyors.
26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall obtain permits from Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), Ventura County Watershed
Protection District (VCWPD) and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
27. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for construction of a residential unit,
Applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with evidence of a
recorded easement allowing access between the project and Mission Bell Plaza
shopping center in perpetuity. If the location of the easement requires
modification to building and/or access road locations, but the approved number
of units has not changed, the Community Development Director may evaluate
and approve an alternative access design between the project and Mission Bell
Plaza shopping center as a permit adjustment to the Residential Planned
Development Permit.
28. Everest Avenue from the western boundary of the project site to Shasta Avenue
shall not be used as a point of ingress or egress to or from the project site. In
addition, at such time that the City of Moorpark seeks to vacate the adjacent
Everest Street right of way from Shasta Avenue to western boundary of the
project site, Property Owner of 635 Los Angeles Avenue shall (a) relinquish any
right of ingress or egress to or from Everest Street; (b) quitclaim any underlying
rights, interest, or ownership of Everest Avenue to the City, if such rights or
ownership exist; and (c) shall not acquire any right in such vacated area from an
adjacent property in the future for purposes of reestablishing any ingress or
egress to or from the project site. The form and contents of the required
documents to effectuate the immediately preceding sentence shall be subject to
City staff approval and be executed by the owner without unreasonable delay
and as part of the street vacation process.
29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall annex into the Citywide
Community Facilities District (CFD) as outlined in the Development Proposal.
232
Resolution No. 2020-____
Page 9
30. The recreation building shall be maintained as a community amenity for the
residential planned development and shall not be converted to another use.
Engineering / Public Works
31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall revise the grading, street
improvements, and drainage plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public
Works Director
- END -
233
ATTACHMENT 9
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2014-03 BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOORPARK AND SKY LINE 66, LLC, FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-01, ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2014-01, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 2014-02, AND VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5869, A 69 UNIT MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT,
RECREATION CENTER, AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AT 635 LOS ANGELES AVENUE
WHEREAS, Section 65864, Article 2.5, Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the State
Planning and Zoning Law provides that cities may enter into contractual obligations
known as Development Agreements with persons having equitable interest in real
property for development of that property; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, applications for General Plan Amendment No.
2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03 were
filed by Menashe Kozar for Sky Line 66, LLC, for the construction of a 69 unit multi-
family residential condominium development, including a recreation center and
associated site improvements, located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2020-647, recommending to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and
conditional approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01, Zone Change No. 2014-
01, Residential Planned Development No. 2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
5869, and Development Agreement No. 2014-03; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020, the City
Council considered the Development Agreement and public testimony related thereto;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all points of public testimony
relevant to the Development Agreement and has given careful consideration to the
content of the Development Agreement, and has reached a decision on the matter; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2020-___, adopting a Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01 and introducing Ordinance No. ___, approving Zone Change No. 2014-01,
for the project referenced above.
234
Ordinance No. ____
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Moorpark does hereby find as follows:
A. The provisions of the development agreement are consistent with the General
Plan in that the proposed project will provide for the orderly development of land
identified in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as appropriate for
residential development and the Development Agreement will strengthen the
planning process by providing vesting of development rights, addressing timing
of development, determining development fees, and providing affordable
housing.
B. The provisions of the agreement are consistent with Chapter 15.40 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code in that the City is authorized to enter into a binding
contractual agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in
real property within its boundaries for the development of such property in order
to establish certainty in the development process.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby adopts the Development Agreement attached
hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit A) between the City of Moorpark, a municipal
corporation, and Sky Line 66, LLC and the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause one
copy of the signed, adopted agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder no
later than ten (10) days after the City enters into the development agreement pursuant
to the requirements of Government Code Section 65868.5.
SECTION 3: Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the Community
Development Director shall cause the property that is the subject of the Development
Agreement to be identified on the Zoning Map of the City by the designation “DA”
followed by the dates of the term of said Agreement.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its
passage and adoption.
235
Ordinance No. ____
Page 3
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall
make a written record of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall
publish notice of adoption in the manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ____________, 2020.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Development Agreement with Exhibits
236
Ordinance No. ____
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Recording Requested By
And When Recorded Return to:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
§ 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF MOORPARK
AND
SKY LINE 66, LLC
237
Ordinance No. ____
Page 5
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement the ("Agreement") is made and entered into
on ______________, 2020 by and between the CITY OF MOORPARK, a
municipal corporation (referred to hereinafter as "City") and SKY LINE 66, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, the owner of real property within the City of
Moorpark generally referred to as Residential Planned Development Permit
2014-02 (referred to hereinafter as "Developer"). City and Developer are
referred to hereinafter collectively as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this
Agreement, City and Developer agree as follows:
1. Recitals: This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and
for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by
the Parties:
1.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Moorpark
Municipal Code Chapter 15.40, City is authorized to enter into a
binding contractual agreement with any person having a legal or
equitable interest in real property within its boundaries for the
development of such property in order to establish certainty in the
development process.
1.2 Sky Line 66, LLC, is the owner in fee simple of certain real property
in the City of Moorpark identified in the legal description set forth in
Exhibit “A” which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference, commonly known as 635 Los Angeles Avenue, referred
to hereinafter as the “Property”.
1.3 Prior to, and in connection with, the approval of this Agreement, the
City Council reviewed the project to be developed pursuant to this
Agreement as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA.”) On _______________, 2020, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2020-____, adopting the Negative Declaration
(“ND”) prepared for this Agreement and the Project Approvals as
defined in Subsection 1.4 of this Agreement.
1.4 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2014-01, Zone Change (ZC)
No. 2014-01, Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No.
2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5869 including all
subsequently approved modifications and permit adjustments to the
RPD Permit, TTM, and all amendments thereto (collectively "the
Project Approvals"; individually "a Project Approval") provide for the
development of the Property with sixty-nine (69) townhouse
condominiums and the construction of any improvements in
connection therewith ("the Project").
238
Ordinance No. ____
Page 6
1.5 By this Agreement, City desires to obtain the binding agreement of
Developer to develop the Property in accordance with the Project
Approvals and this Agreement. In consideration thereof, City
agrees to limit the future exercise of certain of its governmental and
proprietary powers to the extent specified in this Agreement.
1.6 By this Agreement, Developer desires to obtain the binding
agreement of City to permit the development of the Property in
accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. In
consideration thereof, Developer agrees to waive its rights to legally
challenge the limitations and conditions imposed upon the
development of the Property pursuant to the Project Approvals and
this Agreement and to provide the public benefits and
improvements specified in this Agreement.
1.7 City and Developer acknowledge and agree that the consideration
to be exchanged pursuant to this Agreement is fair, just and
reasonable and that this Agreement is consistent with the General
Plan of City, as currently amended.
1.8 On October 22, 2019, the Planning Commission commenced a duly
noticed public hearing on this Agreement, and at the conclusion of
the hearing on January 28, 2020 recommended approval of this
Agreement.
1.9 On __________, 2020, the City Council of City (“City Council”)
commenced a duly noticed public hearing on this Agreement, and
following the conclusion of the hearing closed the hearing and
introduced and provided first reading to Ordinance No. ___ (“the
Enabling Ordinance”) that approves this Agreement. Thereafter on
__________, 2020, the City Council gave second reading to and
adopted the Enabling Ordinance.
2. Property Subject To This Agreement. All of the Property shall be subject
to this Agreement. The Property may also be referred to hereinafter as "the site."
3. Binding Effect. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the
benefits of the Agreement inure to, each Party and each successive successor in
interest thereto (subject to Subsection 3.2 below) and constitute covenants that
run with the Property. Whenever the terms "City" and "Developer" are used
herein, such terms shall include every successive successor in interest thereto.
3.1 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who acquires
any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property shall be
conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to be bound by
this Agreement, whether or not any reference to the Agreement is
contained in the instrument by which such person acquired such
right, title or interest, subject to Subsection 3.2 below.
239
Ordinance No. ____
Page 7
3.2 Release Upon Subsequent Transfer. Upon the conveyance of
Developer’s interest in the Property or any portion thereof by
Developer or its successor(s) in interest, the transferor shall be
released from its obligations hereunder with respect to the portion
of Property conveyed as of the effective date of the conveyance,
provided that the transferee expressly assumes all obligations of
the transferred portion of the Property and a copy of the executed
assignment and assumption agreement is delivered to the City prior
to the conveyance. Failure to provide a written assumption
agreement hereunder shall not negate, modify or otherwise affect
the liability of the transferee pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing
contained herein shall be deemed to grant to City discretion to
approve or deny any such conveyance, except as provided in
Subsection 6.13 of this Agreement with respect to the sale of
completed “affordable units” (as defined in that subsection) to
qualified buyers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement
shall not be binding upon the transferee of a Completed Unit with
respect to the transferee’s interest in such Completed Unit, and the
rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall not
run with the portion of the Property that is conveyed with the
Completed Unit after such conveyance of the Completed Unit by
Developer or its successor in interest. For purposes of this
Agreement, “Completed Unit” means a completed residential unit
within the Property for which the City has issued a certificate of
occupancy.
4. Development of the Property. The following provisions shall govern the
subdivision, development and use of the Property.
4.1 Permitted Uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses of
the Property shall be limited to those that are allowed by the Project
Approvals and this Agreement.
4.2 Development Standards. All design and development standards,
including but not limited to density or intensity of use and maximum
height and size of buildings, that shall be applicable to the Property
are set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement.
4.3 Building Standards. All construction on the Property shall adhere to
all City building codes in effect at the time the plan check or permit
is approved per Title 15 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and to any
federal or state building requirements that are then in effect
(collectively "the Building Codes").
4.4 Reservations and Dedications. All reservations and dedications of
land for public purposes that are applicable to the Property are set
forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement.
240
Ordinance No. ____
Page 8
5. Vesting of Development Rights.
5.1 Vested Right to Develop; Timing of Development. Developer and
its successors in interest shall have the vested right to develop the
Property in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Project
Approvals and this Agreement. The Parties intend that this
Agreement, together with the Project Approvals, shall serve as the
controlling document for all subsequent actions, discretionary and
ministerial, relating to the development and occupancy of the
Property, including, without limitation, all Subsequent Approvals (as
defined below). Developer shall have the right, without obligation,
to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and times as
Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective
business judgment.
No future amendment of any existing City ordinance or resolution,
or future adoption of any ordinance, resolution or other action, that
purports to limit the rate or timing of development over time or alter
the sequencing of development phases, whether adopted or
imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum
process, shall apply to the Property provided the Property is
developed in accordance with the Project Approvals and this
Agreement. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
City's right to ensure that Developer timely provides all
infrastructure required by the Project Approvals, Subsequent
Approvals, and this Agreement.
5.2 Amendment of Project Approvals. No amendment of any of the
Project Approvals, whether adopted or approved by the City
Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply
to any portion of the Property, unless the Developer has agreed in
writing to the amendment.
5.3 Issuance of Subsequent Approvals. Applications for land use
approvals, entitlements and permits, including without limitation
subdivision maps (e.g. tentative, vesting tentative, parcel, vesting
parcel, and final maps), subdivision improvement agreements and
other agreements relating to the Project, lot line adjustments,
preliminary and final planned development permits, use permits,
design review approvals (e.g. site plans, architectural plans and
landscaping plans), encroachment permits, and sewer and water
connections that are necessary to or desirable for the development
of the Project (collectively "the Subsequent Approvals"; individually
"a Subsequent Approval") shall be consistent with the Project
Approvals and this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement,
Subsequent Approvals do not include building permits.
Subsequent Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals
and by the applicable provisions of the Moorpark General Plan, the
241
Ordinance No. ____
Page 9
Moorpark Municipal Code and other City ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations, policies, standards and requirements as most
recently adopted or approved by the City Council or through the
initiative or referendum process and in effect at the time that the
application for the Subsequent Approval is deemed complete by
City (collectively "City Laws"), except City Laws that:
(a) change any permitted or conditionally permitted uses of the
Property from what is allowed by the Project Approvals;
(b) limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or any
part thereof, or otherwise require any reduction in the
number of proposed buildings or other improvements from
what is allowed by the Project Approvals;
(c) limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the
approval, development or construction of all or any part of
the Project in any manner, provided that all infrastructure
required by the Project Approvals to serve the portion of the
Property covered by the Subsequent Approval is in place or
is scheduled to be in place prior to completion of
construction;
(d) are not uniformly applied on a citywide basis to all
substantially similar types of development projects or to all
properties with similar land use designations;
(e) modify the land use from what is permitted by the City's
General Plan Land Use Element at the Operative Date of
this Agreement or that prohibits or restricts the establishment
or expansion of urban services including but not limited to
community sewer systems to the Project.
5.4 Modification of Approvals. Throughout the term of this Agreement,
Developer shall have the right, at its election and without risk to or
waiver of any right that is vested in it pursuant to this section, to
apply to City for modifications to Project Approvals and Subsequent
Approvals. The approval or conditional approval of any such
modification shall not require an amendment to this Agreement,
provided that, in addition to any other findings that may be required
in order to approve or conditionally approve the modification, a
finding is made that the modification is consistent with this
Agreement and does not alter the permitted uses, density, intensity,
maximum height, size of buildings or reservations and dedications
as contained in the Project Approvals.
242
Ordinance No. ____
Page 10
5.5 Issuance of Building Permits. No Building Permit shall be
unreasonably withheld or delayed from Developer if Developer is in
compliance with this Agreement and the Project Approvals and
Subsequent Approvals. In addition, no Final Building Permit final
inspection or Certificate of Occupancy will be unreasonably
withheld or delayed from Developer if all infrastructure required by
the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and this Agreement
to serve the portion of the Property covered by the Final Building
Permit is in place or is scheduled to be in place prior to completion
of construction, the Developer is in compliance with all provisions of
this Agreement, the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals,
and all of the other relevant provisions of the Project Approvals,
Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement have been satisfied.
Consistent with Subsection 5.1 of this Agreement, in no event shall
building permits be allocated on any annual numerical basis or on
any arbitrary allocation basis.
5.6 Moratorium on Development. Nothing in this Agreement shall
prevent City, whether by the City Council or through the initiative or
referendum process, from adopting or imposing a moratorium on
the processing and issuance of Subsequent Approvals and building
permits and on the finalizing of building permits by means of a final
inspection or certificate of occupancy, provided that the moratorium
is adopted or imposed (i) on a Citywide basis to all substantially
similar types of development projects and properties with similar
land use designations and (ii) as a result of a utility shortage or a
reasonably foreseeable utility shortage including without limitation a
shortage of water, sewer treatment capacity, electricity or natural
gas.
6. Developer Agreements.
6.1 Development as a Residential Project. Developer shall comply with
(i) this Agreement, (ii) the Project Approvals, (iii) all Subsequent
Approvals for which it was the applicant or a successor in interest
to the applicant, and (iv) ND and any subsequent or supplemental
environmental actions. Developer agrees not to apply for any non-
residential uses on the Property. The clubhouse and private
recreational facilities are considered to be part of the residential
uses.
6.2 Condition of Dedicated or Conveyed Property. All lands and
interests in land dedicated to City shall be free and clear of liens
and encumbrances other than easements or restrictions that do not
preclude or interfere with use of the land or interest for its intended
purpose, as reasonably determined by City.
243
Ordinance No. ____
Page 11
6.3 Development Fee Per Unit. As a condition of the issuance of a
building permit for each residential dwelling unit within the Property,
Developer shall pay City a one-time development fee as described
herein (the “Development Fee”). The Development Fee may be
expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion. The amount
of the Development Fee shall be Nine Thousand Two Hundred
Dollars ($9,200.00) per residential unit. The Development Fee
shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2021, by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The annual CPI adjustment shall be
determined by using the information provided by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban
consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim
metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall be
made using the month of October over the prior October.
In the event there is a decrease in the referenced Index for any
annual indexing, the current amount of the fee shall remain until
such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which results in
an increase.
6.4 Traffic Mitigation Fee. As a condition of the issuance of building
permit for each residential dwelling unit within the boundaries of the
Property, Developer shall pay City a one-time traffic mitigation fee
as described herein (“Citywide Traffic Fee”). The Citywide Traffic
Fee may be expended by City in its sole and unfettered discretion.
The amount of the Citywide Traffic Fee shall be Twelve Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500.00) per residential unit. The
Citywide Traffic Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing
January 1, 2021 and annually thereafter by the change in the
Caltrans Highway Bid Price Index (Bid Price Index) for Selected
California Construction Items for the twelve (12) month period
available on December 31 of the preceding year (“annual
indexing”). In the event there is a decrease in the Bid Price Index
for any annual indexing, the current amount of the fee shall remain
until such time as the next subsequent annual indexing which
results in an increase.
6.5 Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (LAAOC) Fees.
Developer shall pay the LAAOC fee in effect at the time of building
permit issuance for each residential dwelling unit within the
Property.
6.6 Air Quality Fees. Developer agrees to pay to City a one-time air
quality fee, as described herein (“Air Quality Fee”), in satisfaction of
the Transportation Demand Management Fund requirement for the
Project. The Air Quality Fee may be expended by City in its sole
discretion for reduction of regional air pollution emissions.
244
Ordinance No. ____
Page 12
The Air Quality Fee shall be One Thousand Seven Hundred Nine
Dollars ($1,709.00) per residential dwelling unit within the Property
to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
residential dwelling unit in the Project. If the Air Quality Fee is not
paid by January 1, 2021, then commencing on January 1, 2021,
and annually thereafter, the Air Quality Fee shall be adjusted by
any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all fees have
been paid. The CPI increase shall be determined by using the
information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers within the Los
Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan area during the prior
year. The calculation shall be made using the month of October
over the prior month of October. In the event there is a decrease in
the CPI for any annual indexing, the fee shall remain at its then
current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual
indexing which results in an increase.
6.7 Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for each
residential dwelling unit within the Property, Developer shall pay a
one-time fee in lieu of the dedication of parkland and related
improvements (“Park Fee”). The amount of the Park Fee shall be
Ten Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($10,500.00) for each
residential dwelling unit within the Property. If the Park Fee is not
paid by January 1, 2021, the Park Fee shall be adjusted annually
commencing January 1, 2021 by the larger increase of a) or b) as
follows:
(a) The change in the CPI. The change shall be determined by
using the information provided by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for all urban consumers
within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim metropolitan
area during the prior year. The calculation shall be made
using the month of October over the prior October; or
(b) The calculation shall be made to reflect the change in the
Caltrans Highway Bid Price Index (Bid Price Index) for
Selected California Construction Items for the twelve (12)
month period available on December 31 of the preceding
year (annual indexing).
In the event there is a decrease in both of the referenced
Indices for any annual indexing, the Park Fee shall remain at
its then current amount until such time as the next
subsequent annual indexing which results in an increase.
Developer agrees that the above-described payments shall
be deemed to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement
set forth in California Government Code Section 66477 et
seq. for the Property.
245
Ordinance No. ____
Page 13
6.8 Community Services Fee. As a condition of issuance of a building
permit for each residential dwelling unit within the boundaries of the
Project, Developer shall pay City a one-time community services
fee as described herein (Community Services Fee). The
Community Services Fees may be expended by City in its sole and
unfettered discretion. The amount of the Community Services Fees
shall be Two Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($2,700.00) per
residential dwelling unit. Commencing on January 1, 2021, and
annually thereafter, the Community Services Fee shall be adjusted
by any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) until all
Community Service Fee have been paid. The CPI increase shall
be determined by using the information provided by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for All Urban
Consumers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim
metropolitan area during this prior year. The calculation shall be
made using the month of October over the prior month of October
or in the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any annual
indexing, the Community Service Fee shall remain at its then
current amount until such time as the next subsequent annual
indexing which results in an increase.
6.9 Art in Public Places Fee. Developer agrees to pay the Art in Public
Places Fee (Art Fee) in effect at the time of building permit
issuance for each building prior to the issuance of the building
permit for that residential building within the Project consistent with
City Resolution No. 2005-2408 or any Successor Resolution (1.0
percent of total building valuations excluding land value and off-site
improvement costs).
6.10 Other Development and Processing Fees. In addition to fees
specifically mentioned in this Agreement, Developer agrees to pay
all City capital improvement, development, and processing fees at
the rate and amount in effect at the time the fee is required to be
paid. Said fees include but are not limited to Library Facilities Fees,
Police Facilities Fees, Fire Facilities Fees, drainage, entitlement
processing fees, and plan check and permit fees for buildings and
public improvements. Developer further agrees that unless
specifically exempted by this Agreement, it is subject to all fees
imposed by City at the Operative Date of this Agreement and such
future fees imposed as determined by City in its sole discretion so
long as such fees are imposed on projects similar to the Project or
on property similar to the Property.
6.11 Processing Fees. On the Operative Date, Developer shall pay all
outstanding City processing costs related to preparation of this
Agreement, the Project Approvals and the ND.
246
Ordinance No. ____
Page 14
6.12 Community Facilities District
(a) It is the mutual intent of the Parties that the development of
the Project will not have any impact on or require any
contribution from the General Fund of the City. To facilitate
such intent, the City and Developer shall use reasonable
efforts to form a Community Facilities District(s) (“CFD”),
pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the
California Government Code (the “CFD Act”), for the
purposes of financing facilities and services required to be
constructed, provided or funded under this Agreement, as
the City determines are lawfully and appropriately financed
by the CFD. Such facilities and services may include but are
not limited to fees, construction and installation of
landscaping, and future costs for the maintenance of
landscaping and irrigation of the landscaped area.
(b) Developer shall: (i) file with the City a petition for the
[formation of / annexation to] the CFD, (ii) provide any
deposit required by Section 53318 of the CFD Act, (iii) not
oppose formation of the CFD and (iv) vote in favor of the
special tax to fund the CFD.
(c) Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City will not
accept any improvements or facilities to be maintained by the
CFD nor shall the Developer receive any payments from the
CFD for any improvements or facilities until such facilities and
improvements have been inspected and the City determines
in its reasonable discretion, that such improvements and
facilities have been completed in accordance with the
applicable plans, and have no liens outstanding.
(d) Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, the City
Council at its sole discretion may determine that all or a part of
the improvements planned to be included in the CFD may
instead be placed in the Homeowners’ Association for the
Project.
6.13 Densities Allowed for Development and Affordable Housing.
(a) Developer agrees that densities vested and incentives and
concessions received in the Project Approvals include all
densities available as density bonuses and all incentives and
concessions to which Developer is entitled under the
Moorpark Municipal Code, Government Code Sections
65915 through 65917.5 or both; Developer shall not be
entitled to further density bonuses or incentives or
concessions and further agrees, in consideration for the
density bonus obtained through the Project Approvals that is
247
Ordinance No. ____
Page 15
greater than would otherwise be available, to provide eleven
(11) housing units, with a minimum of 1,800 square feet and
three (3) bedrooms, 2.5 baths each, affordable to low
income households (not to exceed 80% of median income
adjusted for family size). These eleven (11) housing units
may be referred to as affordable units or units affordable to
low income households or required affordable units.
(b) Developer explicitly acknowledges that its agreement to
construct these affordable units is given both as specific
consideration for both the density bonus and in general as
consideration for City’s willingness to negotiate and enter
into this Agreement and for the valuable consideration given
by City through this Agreement. Developer further
acknowledges that its agreement to construct these
affordable units is not the result of an existing policy or
regulation imposed by City but instead is the result of arm’s
length negotiation between Parties.
(c) Developer further agrees that it shall provide the required
number of affordable housing units as specified above
regardless of the cost to acquire or construct said housing
units. Developer further agrees that City has no obligation to
use eminent domain proceedings to acquire any of the
required affordable housing units and that this Subsection
6.13 is specifically exempt from the requirements of
Subsection 7.2.
(d) Prior to recordation of the first Final Map for this Project, the
parties agree to execute an Affordable Housing Purchase
and Sale Agreement (Affordable Housing Agreement) that
sets forth the Developer’s and City’s obligations and
provides procedures and requirements to ensure that all of
the required affordable housing units are provided consistent
with this Agreement and applicable State laws and remains
affordable for the longest feasible time. The Affordable
Housing Agreement shall include but not be limited to the
following items: Initial Purchase Price, market value, buyer
eligibility, affordability and resale covenants and restrictions,
equity share and second trust deed provision, respective role
of City and Developer, the responsibility of providing the
affordable units by each developer in the event of
successors and/or assigns to this Agreement, quality of and
responsibility for selection of amenities and applicability of
home warranties to meet all or a portion of its obligation and
any other items determined necessary by the City.
Developer shall pay the City’s direct costs for preparation
and review of the Affordable Housing Agreement up to a
maximum of ten-thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).
248
Ordinance No. ____
Page 16
(e) All affordable units shall meet the criteria of all California
Health and Safety Code statutes and implementing
regulations pertaining to for-sale Affordable Housing units so
as to qualify as newly affordable to low income households
and to satisfy a portion of the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) obligation. The affordable units required
by this Agreement are consideration for City’s entry into this
Agreement and therefore none of the affordable units shall
duplicate or substitute for the affordable housing requirement
of any other developer or development project. All
subsequent approvals required of City under this Subsection
6.13 shall be made at City’s sole discretion. If any conflict
exists between this Agreement and the Affordable Housing
Agreement required by and negotiated pursuant to this
Agreement or the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract
Map No. 5869 and/or RPD Permit No. 2014-02, then the
Affordable Housing Agreement shall prevail.
(f) In the event the monthly Homeowner Association (HOA)
fees exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00), Developer shall
deposit one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00) for each dollar
or portion thereof of the monthly HOA fees that are in excess
of two hundred dollars ($200.00) into a City administered
trust account to assist with future HOA fees for each affected
unit.
(g) The Affordable Sales Price for low-income buyers shall not
exceed affordable housing cost, as defined in Sec.
50052.5(b) (3) of California Health and Safety Code.
Section 50052.5(h) of the California Health and Safety Code
provides that an appropriate household size in terms of
determining purchase price is one more person than the
number of bedrooms. This means that the pricing for a three
(3) bedroom unit will be based on a household of four (4)
regardless of the actual size of the household purchasing the
unit. For example, the monthly “affordable housing cost” for
a three (3) bedroom unit would be 30% times 70% of the
current median income for a household of four (4) in Ventura
County, divided by twelve (12). This monthly amount
includes the components identified in Section 6920 of Title
25 of the California Code of Regulation shown below (See
Section 50052.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code). The
Affordable Sales Price for a low income household
purchasing a three (3) bedroom unit under current market
conditions, based upon the following assumptions:
249
Ordinance No. ____
Page 17
Item Detail Amount 3 Bedroom
Affordable
Sale $214,000.00
Down Payment 5% of Affordable Sales Price $10,700.00
Loan Amount Affordable Sales Price less
Down $203,300.00
Interest Rate 4.65%
Monthly
Property Tax
1.25% of Initial
Purchase Price 223.00
LMD Not Currently N/A
HOA 200.00
Fire Insurance 20.00
Maintenance 30.00
Utilities 186.00
Low Income Buyer
(h) The assumptions associated with the above purchase price
figures for low income households include a 5% down
payment, based on Affordable Sales Price for a three (3)
bedroom unit, mortgage interest rate of 4.65%, no mortgage
insurance, property tax rate of 1.25%, based on Affordable
Sales Price, homeowners’ association dues of $200.00 per
month, fire insurance of $20.00 per month, maintenance
costs of $30.00 per month, and utilities of $186.00 per month
for a three (3) bedroom unit.
(i) Developer acknowledges that changes in market conditions
may result in changes to the Affordable Sales Price, down
payment amounts, mortgage interest rates, and other factors
for both low income and very low income buyers.
Furthermore, if “affordable housing cost”, as defined in
Section 50052.5 of California Health and Safety Code,
should change in the future, the above guidelines will be
modified. The Affordable Housing Purchase and Sale
Agreement negotiated pursuant to this Agreement shall
address this potential change.
Developer acknowledges that amounts listed in the “Low
Income Buyer” table in Subsection 6.13(g), above, are for
illustration purposes only and are subject to change.
(j) In the event the City, at its sole discretion purchases one or
more of the units from Developer in lieu of a qualified buyer,
the Affordable Sales Price shall be based on a household
size appropriate to the number of bedrooms in the unit being
purchased by the City, consistent with all requirements of
250
Ordinance No. ____
Page 18
this Subsection 6.13. Developer agrees that, pursuant to
City’s rights under this Agreement and/or the Affordable
Housing Agreement and prior to and upon the sale of a
required unit to a qualified buyer (or City in lieu of a qualified
buyer as determined by City at its sole discretion), City may
at its sole discretion take any actions and impose any
conditions on said sale or subsequent sale of the unit to
ensure ongoing affordability to low income households and
related matters. After the sale of a housing unit by Developer
to a qualified buyer (or City in lieu of a qualified buyer as
determined by City at its sole discretion), City, not
Developer, shall have sole responsibility for approving any
subsequent sale of that housing unit.
(k) Developer agrees that City shall be responsible at its sole
discretion for marketing the affordable units, selecting and
qualifying eligible buyers for these units, and overseeing the
escrow processes to sell the affordable units to low income
households; and providing the forms of Deed of Trust,
Promissory Note, Resale Refinance Restriction Agreement
and Option to Purchase Property and Notice of Affordability
Restriction on Transfer of Property and all necessary
contracts and related documents to ensure that the
referenced affordable units remain occupied by low income
households for the longest feasible time (the “Affordability
Documents”). Developer further agrees that the difference
between the Affordable Sales Price (as referenced in this
Agreement) paid by a qualified buyer and market value shall
be retained by City as a second deed of trust.
(l) Developer shall pay closing costs for each affordable unit,
not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). Beginning
January 1, 2021 and on January 1st for each year thereafter,
the maximum eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) to be paid
for closing costs shall be increased annually by any
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim
metropolitan area during the prior year. The calculation shall
be made using the month of October over the month of
October. In the event there is a decrease in the CPI for any
annual indexing, the closing costs for each affordable unit
shall remain at its then current amount until such time as the
next subsequent annual indexing which results in an
increase. The referenced Developer funded closing costs
shall be for the benefit of qualified buyers (or City in lieu of
qualified buyers if one or more of the required units are
purchased by the City) in their acquisition of a unit from
Developer not Developer’s acquisition of a unit from one or
more third parties. The Developer’s escrow cost shall not
251
Ordinance No. ____
Page 19
exceed the then applicable maximum amount per unit
regardless of the number of escrows that may be opened on
a specific unit.
(m) Developer warrants that the quality of materials and
construction techniques of the affordable units sold to the
qualified low income buyers, or City shall in all manner be
identical to that of all other units constructed in this Project
and subject to all Conditions of Approval and shall meet all
Building Codes.
(n) The City shall have the same choices of basic finish options
as purchasers of market rate units in this Project and final
walk-through approval of condition of unit before close of
sale. Any basic finish options provided to buyers of market
rate units shall be provided to City or buyer(s) of the
affordable units, including but not limited to color and style
choices for carpeting and other floor coverings, counter tops,
roofing materials, exterior stucco and trim of any type,
fixtures, and other decorative items. City staff person
responsible for affordable housing will select basic finish
options for the affordable units.
(o) Developer agrees that all warranties for the affordable units
shall be the same or better than those for the market rate
units, all such warranties shall inure to the benefit of and be
enforceable by the ultimate occupants of the affordable units
and that all warranties by subcontractors and suppliers shall
inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by such
occupants. The home warranties for the affordable units
shall be the same duration as the warranties for the market
rate units and not less than the maximum time required by
State law but in no event less than ten (10) years.
(p) Developer agrees to provide the same amenities for the
affordable units (purchased by the low income buyer, or City)
as those amenities that are provided for the market rate
units. The amenities shall include but not be limited to
concrete roof tiles; air conditioning/central heating; garage
door opener; fireplaces; washer/dryer hook-ups; garbage
disposal; built-in dishwasher, stove, oven and microwave;
windows; wood cabinets; shelving; counter-tops; floor
coverings; window coverings; electrical outlets, lighting
fixtures and other electrical items; plumbing fixtures including
sinks, toilets, bathtubs and showers; and door and cabinet
hardware, and shall all be of the same quality and quantity
as provided in the Project’s market rate units as determined
by the City’s Community Development Director and City staff
person responsible for City’s Affordable Housing Programs.
252
Ordinance No. ____
Page 20
(q) The floor plan and size of the units shall be approved by the
Community Development Director and City staff person
responsible for City’s Affordable Housing Programs, and
include a downstairs bathroom.
(r) The parties agree that prior to and upon the sale of an
affordable unit to a qualified buyer or City, City may at its
sole discretion take any actions and impose any conditions
on buyer eligibility and on said sale or subsequent sale of
the unit to ensure ongoing affordability to low income
households and related matters. Developer agrees if it sells
any of the affordable units directly to qualified low income
buyers, all requirements of the buyer, including, but not
limited to, completion of a City approved homebuyer
education training workshop and the Affordability
Documents, shall be included as a requirement of the sale.
The language of all such documents shall be approved by
City at its sole discretion. City has sole discretion in selecting
lenders, escrow and title companies and real estate
professionals to assist with the sale of the affordable units.
(s) In the event City is unable to provide a qualified buyer when
one of the low-income units has received final inspection
approval, Developer shall be allowed to continue to obtain
building permits and/or final inspection approval for the non-
affordable units. Any low-income units remaining unsold six
(6) months after the final inspection approval of the 69th unit
will be purchased by the City, as provided for in the
Affordable Housing Agreement. Developer is required to
maintain low-income units in move-in condition until such
time as the City finds a buyer. For purposes of this
schedule, final inspection approval requires approval of the
City’s Building Official and Community Development
Director.
(t) Developer also agrees that subsidiaries, divisions or
affiliates of Developer may not be used to provide lending,
escrow or other services relevant to the purchase
transactions for the affordable units.
(u) If a qualified low income buyer is identified by City prior to or
at the time of final inspection approval of any of the
affordable units, Developer shall open escrow for the sale of
said unit as provided for in the Affordable Housing
Agreement, and shall enter escrow directly with the buyer
identified by City, and proceed to closing of said escrow. If a
qualified low income buyer has not been identified at the
time Developer receives final inspection approval for an
affordable unit, City, at its option, may agree to purchase the
253
Ordinance No. ____
Page 21
affordable unit required to be provided by Developer for the
amount and at the time as provided for in this agreement.
Developer and City agree to use their best efforts to
complete the close of escrow within forty-five (45) days of
the final inspection approval of an affordable unit.
(v) Developer shall satisfy all mechanic’s, laborer’s, material
man’s, supplier’s, or vendor’s liens and any construction loan
or other financing affecting any unit or lot in the Project
which has been designated for an affordable unit, before the
close of escrow for that affordable unit.
(w) Developer agrees that the required construction of the low
income affordable units must receive final inspection
approval by Developer on terms consistent with this
Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement as
specified in the following schedule:
Prior to
Occupancy of
Number of
Affordable Units
20th Unit 3
40th Unit 3
60th Unit 3
69th Unit 2
Total 11
(x) The required affordable units within the Project shall be
designated as unit numbers in the Buildings within the
Project consistent with Exhibit “C” attached hereto and
incorporated herein. The City Manager or the City
Manager’s designee may approve in writing different unit
numbers within the Project so long as the unit contains no
less than 1,800 square feet, with a minimum of three (3)
bedrooms and 2.5 baths each.
(y) Developer shall provide the initial buyer of each Completed
Unit in the Project a disclosure that the Project includes
eleven (11) residential dwelling units that will be sold to
qualified low income households. The disclosures shall also
state that these eleven (11) residential dwelling units have
deed restrictions recorded on their title that restrict the re-
sale of these units only to qualified low income buyers. The
form and language of the disclosure shall be approved by
the City Attorney and Community Development Director and
shall conform to all requirements of the applicable State
agencies pertaining to real estate disclosures.
254
Ordinance No. ____
Page 22
6.14 Annual Review Procedures. Developer agrees to comply with
Section 15.40.150 of the Moorpark Municipal Code and any
provision amendatory or supplementary thereto for annual review of
this Agreement and further agrees that the annual review shall
include evaluation of its compliance with the approved Project
conditions of approval.
6.15 Eminent Domain. Developer agrees that any election to acquire
property by eminent domain shall be at City’s sole discretion, and
only after compliance with all legally required procedures including
but not limited to a hearing on a proposed resolution of necessity.
6.16 Implementation Plan. Prior to the submittal of an application for
any subdivision, or any other development project or entitlement
application, Developer shall submit and gain approval from City
Council a plan to guarantee the Developer agreements contained in
this Agreement and in the conditions of approval for the VTTM and
RPD. The plan shall address the entities responsible and method
and timing of guarantee for each component of Developer’s
obligations and is subject to City approval at its sole discretion.
6.17 Fee Protest Waiver. Developer agrees that any fees and payments
pursuant to this Agreement and for the Project shall be made
without reservation, and Developer expressly waives the right to
payment of any such fees under protest pursuant to California
Government Code Section 66020 and statutes amendatory or
supplementary thereto. Developer further agrees that the fees it
has agreed to pay pursuant to Subsections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.8 of this
Agreement are not public improvement fees collected pursuant to
Government Code Section 66006 and statutes amendatory or
supplementary thereto.
6.18 CPI Indexes. In the event the “CPI” referred to in Subsections 6.3,
6.4, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 or the Bid Price Index referred to in
Subsections 6.4 and 6.7 are discontinued or revised, a successor
index with which the “CPI” and or Bid Price Index are replaced shall
be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would
otherwise have been obtained if either or both the “CPI” and Bid
Price Index had not been discontinued or revised.
6.19 City Ability to Modify. Developer acknowledges the City’s ability to
modify the development standards and to change the General Plan
designation and zoning of the Property upon the termination or
expiration of this Agreement (if the Project has not been built), and
Developer hereby waives any rights they might otherwise have to
seek judicial review of such City actions to change the development
255
Ordinance No. ____
Page 23
standards, General Plan designation and zoning to those
development standards and density of permitted development to
that in existence prior to the approval of GPA No. 2014-01 and ZC
No. 2014-01.
6.20 Homeowners Association. Prior to recordation of the first final map
for the Property, if required by City at its sole discretion, Developer
shall form one or more property owner associations to assume
ownership and maintenance of private recreation, private streets,
parking lots, landscape areas, flood control and NPDES facilities
and other amenities within the Project. The obligation of said
Homeowners Associations shall be more specifically defined in the
conditions of approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map for
the property.
7. City Agreements.
7.1 Commitment of Resources. At Developer’s expense, City shall
commit reasonable time and resources of City staff to work with
Developer on the processing of applications for Project Approvals
and all Subsequent Approvals and Building Permits for the Project
area and if requested in writing by Developer shall use overtime
and independent contractors whenever possible.
7.2 Easement and Fee Title Acquisitions. If requested in writing by
Developer and limited to City’s legal authority, City at its sole and
absolute discretion shall proceed to acquire, at Developer’s sole
cost and expense, easements or fee title to land in which Developer
does not have title or interest in order to allow construction of public
improvements required of Developer including any land which is
outside City's legal boundaries. The process shall generally follow
Government Code Section 66462.5 et seq. and shall include the
obligation of Developer to enter into an agreement with City,
guaranteed by cash deposits and other security as the City may
require, to pay all City costs including but not limited to, acquisition
of the interest, attorney fees, appraisal fees, engineering fees, City
staff costs, and City overhead expenses of 15% on all out-of-pocket
costs.
7.3 Concurrent Entitlement Processing. City agrees that whenever
possible as determined by City in its sole discretion to process
concurrently all land use entitlements for the Project so long as the
application for such entitlements are “deemed complete” in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 4.5 Review and
approval of Development Projects (Permit Streamlining Act) of the
California Government Code.
256
Ordinance No. ____
Page 24
7.4 Park Fees. City agrees that the Park Fee required under
Subsection 6.7 of this Agreement meets all of Developer's
obligations under applicable law for park land dedication.
7.5 Reimbursements from other Developments. City shall facilitate the
reimbursement to Developer of any costs incurred by Developer
that may be subject to partial reimbursement from other developers
as a condition of approval of a tract map, development permit or
development agreement with one or more other developers and at
City’s discretion may include provisions requiring such
reimbursement to Developer for the same in such other
development project conditions of approval.
7.6 Early Grading Agreement. The City Manager is authorized sign an
early grading agreement on behalf of the City to allow rough
grading of the Project prior to City Council approval of a final
subdivision map. Said early grading agreement shall be consistent
with the conditions of the Project approved tentative map and
contingent on City Engineer and Director of Community
Development acceptance of a performance bond in a form and
amount satisfactory to them to guarantee implementation of the
erosion control plan and completion of the rough grading;
construction of on-site and off-site improvements consistent with
the City Council approved Project and Tentative Map. In the case
of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the early
grading agreement, the City Council may by resolution declare the
surety forfeited.
8. Supersession of Agreement by Change of Law. In the event that any
state or federal law or regulation enacted after the date the Enabling
Ordinance was adopted by the City Council prevents or precludes
compliance with any provision of the Agreement, such provision shall be
deemed modified or suspended to comply with such state or federal law or
regulation, as reasonably determined necessary by City.
9. Demonstration of Good Faith Compliance. In order to ascertain
compliance by Developer with the provisions of this Agreement, the
Agreement shall be reviewed annually in accordance with Moorpark
Municipal Code Chapter 15.40. of City or any successor thereof then in
effect. The failure of City to conduct any such annual review shall not, in
any manner, constitute a breach of this Agreement by City, diminish,
impede, or abrogate the obligations of Developer hereunder or render this
Agreement invalid or void. At the same time as the referenced annual
review, City shall also review Developer’s compliance with the MMRP.
10. Authorized Delays. Performance by any Party of its obligations
hereunder, other than payment of fees, shall be excused during any
period of "Excusable Delay", as hereinafter defined, provided that the
Party claiming the delay gives written notice of the delay to the other
257
Ordinance No. ____
Page 25
Parties as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained. For
purposes hereof, Excusable Delay shall mean delay that directly affects,
and is beyond the reasonable control of, the Party claiming the delay,
including without limitation: (a) act of God; (b) civil commotion; (c) riot; (d)
strike, picketing or other labor dispute; (e) shortage of materials or
supplies; (f) damage to work in progress by reason of fire, flood,
earthquake or other casualty; (g) failure, delay or inability of City or other
local government entity to provide adequate levels of public services,
facilities or infrastructure to the Property including, by way of example
only, the lack of water to serve any portion of the Property due to drought;
(h) delay caused by a delay by other third party entities which are required
to approve plans or documents for Developer to construct the Project, or
restrictions imposed or mandated by such other third party entities or
governmental entities other than City, (including but not limited to, Ventura
County Watershed Protection District); or (i) litigation brought by a third
party attacking the validity of this Agreement, a Project Approval, a
Subsequent Approval or any other action necessary for development of
the Project.
11. Default Provisions.
11.1 Default by Developer. The Developer shall be deemed to have
breached this Agreement if it:
(a) Practices, or attempts to practice, any fraud or deceit upon
City; or willfully violates any order, ruling or decision of any
regulatory or judicial body having jurisdiction over the
Property or the Project, provided that Developer may contest
any such order, ruling or decision by appropriate
proceedings conducted in good faith, in which event no
breach of this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred
unless and until there is a final adjudication adverse to
Developer; or
(b) Fails to make any payments required under this Agreement
within five (5) business days after City gives written notice to
Developer that the same is due and payable; or
(c) Breaches any of the other provisions of this Agreement and
fails to cure the same within thirty (30) days after City gives
written notice to Developer of such breach (or, if the breach
is not able to be cured within such thirty (30) day period,
Developer fails to start to cure the same within thirty (30)
days after delivery of written notice by City of such breach or
fails to thereafter diligently prosecute the cure to
completion).
258
Ordinance No. ____
Page 26
11.2 Default by City. City shall be in breach of this Agreement if it
breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement and fails to cure
the breach within thirty (30) days after Developer gives written
notice to City of the breach (or, if the breach is not able to be cured
within such thirty (30) day period, City fails to start to cure the same
within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice from Developer
of such breach or fails to thereafter diligently prosecute the cure to
completion).
11.3 Content of Notice of Violation. Every notice of breach shall state
with specificity that it is given pursuant to this section of this
Agreement, the nature of the alleged breach, and the manner in
which the breach may be satisfactorily cured. Every notice shall
state the applicable period to cure. The notices shall be given in
accordance with Section 20 hereof.
11.4 Remedies for Breach. The Parties acknowledge that remedies at
law, including without limitation money damages, would be
inadequate for breach of this Agreement by any Party due to the
size, nature and scope of the Project. The Parties also
acknowledge that it would not be feasible of possible to restore the
Property to its natural condition once implementation of the
Agreement has begun. Therefore, the Parties agree that the
remedies for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to the
remedies expressly set forth in this subsection.
The remedies for breach of the Agreement by the City shall be
injunctive relief and/or specific performance.
The remedies for breach of the Agreement by the Developer shall
be injunctive relief and/or specific performance. In addition, and
notwithstanding any other language of this Agreement, if the breach
is of Subsection 6.13 or 6.14 of this Agreement, City shall have the
right to withhold the issuance of building permits from the date that
the notice of violation was given pursuant to Subsection 11.3 hereof
until the date that the breach is cured as provided in the notice of
violation.
Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to preclude City from
prosecuting a criminal action against Developer if it violates any
City ordinance or State statute.
12. Mortgage Protection.
12.1 Discretion to Encumber. The Parties hereto agree that this
Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at
Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any
portion thereof or any improvements thereon then owned by such
person with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device
259
Ordinance No. ____
Page 27
(“Mortgage”) securing financing with respect to the Property or such
portion. Any mortgagee or trust deed beneficiary of the Property or
any portion thereof or any improvements thereon and its
successors and assigns (“Mortgagee”) shall be entitled to the
following rights and privileges.
12.2 Lender Requested Modification/Interpretation. City acknowledges
that the lenders providing financing to Developer for the Property
may request certain interpretations and modifications of this
Agreement. City therefore agrees upon request, from time to time,
to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to
discuss in good faith any such request for interpretation or
modification. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested interpretation or modification provided such
interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and
purposes of this Agreement, provided, further, that any
modifications of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of
this Agreement pertaining to modifications and amendments.
12.3 Mortgage Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior
to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or
impair the lien of any binding and effective against the Mortgagee
and every owner of the Property, or part thereof, whose title thereto
is acquired by foreclosure, trustee sale or otherwise; provided,
however, Mortgagee and such owner shall not be responsible for
any matters that occurred prior to their acquisition of the Property or
such portion.
12.4 Written Notice of Default. If a non-monetary default is not cured by
Developer within thirty (30) days after written notice by City to
Developer or a monetary default is not cured with in five (5) days
after written notice by City to Developer, then each Mortgagee shall
be entitled to received written notice from City of the applicable
default by Developer under this Agreement provided the Mortgagee
has delivered a written request to the City for such notice and shall
have provided its address for notices in writing to the City. Each
such Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not the obligation, to
cure such default for an additional period of thirty (30) days after
delivery of such notice of default by City to the Mortgagee. City
shall not commence legal action against Developer by reason of
Developer’s breach without allowing the Mortgagee to cure the
same as specified herein.
13. Estoppel Certificate. At any time and from time to time, Developer may
deliver written notice to City and City may deliver written notice to
Developer requesting that such Party certify in writing that, to the
knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and
effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Agreement has not
260
Ordinance No. ____
Page 28
been amended, or if amended, the identity of each amendment, and (iii)
the requesting Party is not in breach of this Agreement, or if in breach, a
description of each such breach. The Party receiving such a request shall
execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days following receipt of
the notice. City acknowledges that a certificate may be relied upon by
successors in interest to the Developer who requested the certificate and
by holders of record of deeds of trust on the portion of the Property in
which that Developer has a legal interest.
14. Administration of Agreement. Any consent or approval herein to be given
by the City may be given by the City Manager provided it is expressed and
is in writing. Any decision by City staff concerning the interpretation and
administration of this Agreement and development of the Property in
accordance herewith may be appealed by the Developer to the City
Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk of
City within ten (10) days after the affected Developer receives written
notice of the staff decision. The City Council shall render its decision to
affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the
appeal was filed. The Developer shall not seek judicial review of any staff
decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant to this
section.
15. Amendment or Termination by Mutual Consent. In accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code of City or any
successor thereof then in effect, this Agreement may be amended or
terminated, in whole or in part, by mutual consent of City and the affected
Developer.
15.1 Exemption for Amendments of Project Approvals. No amendment
to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approvals shall require an
amendment to this Agreement and any such amendment shall be
deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that the
amendment becomes effective, provided that the amendment is
consistent with this Agreement and does not alter the permitted
uses, density, intensity, maximum height, size of buildings or
reservations and dedications as contained in the Project Approvals
or Subsequent Approvals.
16. Developer Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel
approved by City, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees and
agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, fines, penalties,
costs, claims, demands, damages, injuries or judgments arising out of, or
resulting in any way from, Developer's performance pursuant to this
Agreement including, but not limited to, Developer’s construction of the
Project on the Property and construction of improvements on the City Site
and any injury sustained by any person in connection with the construction
or partial construction of buildings and improvements on the Property and
City Site.
261
Ordinance No. ____
Page 29
Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and
hold harmless City and its officers, employees and agents from and
against any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul
this Agreement, or any provision thereof, the environmental documents
prepared and approved in connection with the approval of the Project, or
any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval or modifications thereto, or
any other subsequent entitlements for the project and including any
related environmental approval.
17. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this
Agreement of which time is an element.
18. Operative Date. As described in Subsection 1.9 above, this Agreement
shall become operative on the Operative Date, being the date the
Enabling Ordinance becomes effective pursuant to Government Code
Section 36937.
19. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a term of
twenty (20) years commencing on the Operative Date or until one year
after the issuance of the final building permit for occupancy of the last unit
of the Project whichever occurs last, unless said term is amended or the
Agreement is sooner terminated as otherwise provided herein. Expiration
of the term or earlier termination of this Agreement shall not automatically
affect any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval or Building Permit or
Final Building Permit that has been granted or any right or obligation
arising independently from such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval
or Building Permit or Final Building Permit.
Upon expiration of the term or earlier termination of this Agreement, the
Parties shall execute any document reasonably requested by any Party to
remove this Agreement from the public records as to the Property, and
every portion thereof, to the extent permitted by applicable laws.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall survive the expiration or
earlier termination of this Agreement: (i) all obligations arising under this
Agreement prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement;
and (ii) Subsection 6.19 of this Agreement.
20. Notices. All notices and other communications given pursuant to this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when
personally delivered or upon the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United
States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the Parties at the addresses set forth in Exhibit “B” attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Any Party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate
a different address which shall be substituted for the one above specified.
262
Ordinance No. ____
Page 30
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and those exhibits and documents
referenced herein contain the entire agreement between the Parties
regarding the subject matter hereof, and all prior agreements or
understandings, oral or written, are hereby merged herein. This
Agreement shall not be amended, except as expressly provided herein.
22. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a
waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar; nor shall any such
waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision.
No waiver shall be binding, unless it is executed in writing by a duly
authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of the
waiver is sought.
23. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement shall be effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not
rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the purposes of
this Agreement.
24. Relationship of the Parties. Each Party acknowledges that, in entering
into and performing under this Agreement, it is acting as an independent
entity and not as an agent of any of the other Parties in any respect.
Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection
herewith shall be construed as creating the relationship of partners, joint
ventures or any other association of any kind or nature between City and
Developer, jointly or severally.
25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into
for the sole benefit of the Parties and their successors in interest. No
other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of
this Agreement.
26. Recordation of Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement and any
amendment thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the
County of Ventura by the City Clerk of City within the period required by
Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code of City or any successor
thereof then in effect.
27. Cooperation Between City and Developer. City and Developer shall
execute and deliver to the other all such other and further instruments and
documents as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement.
28. Rules of Construction. The captions and headings of the various sections
and subsections of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only,
and they shall not constitute a part of this Agreement for any other
purpose or affect interpretation of the Agreement. Should any provision of
this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any provision of the
263
Ordinance No. ____
Page 31
Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Subsequent
Approvals, the provision of this Agreement shall prevail.
29. Joint Preparation. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been
prepared jointly and equally by the Parties, and it shall not be construed
against any Party on the ground that the Party prepared the Agreement or
caused it to be prepared.
30. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement is made, entered into, and
executed in the County of Ventura, California, and the laws of the State of
California shall govern its interpretation and enforcement. Any action, suit
or proceeding related to, or arising from, this Agreement shall be filed in
the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the County of Ventura.
31. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for
the enforcement or declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to, or as
a result of any alleged breach of, this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall
be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and
costs, and any judgment, order or decree rendered in such action, suit or
proceeding shall include an award thereof.
32. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one
and the same instrument.
33. Authority to Execute. Developer warrants and represents that to its
knowledge as of the Operative Date and with respect to each entity that is
defined as Developer: (i) it is duly organized and existing; (ii) it is duly
authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement; (iii) by so executing this
Agreement, Developer is formally bound to the provisions of this
Agreement; (iv) Developer’s entering into and performance of its
obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any
other agreement to which Developer is bound; and (v) there is no existing
or threatened litigation or legal proceeding of which Developer is aware
that could prevent Developer from entering into or performing its
obligations set forth in this Agreement.
264
Ordinance No. ____
Page 32
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Development
Agreement effective as of the Operative Date.
CITY OF MOORPARK
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
SKY LINE 66 LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:
Menashe Kozar, President and Manager
265
Ordinance No. ____
Page 33
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
266
Ordinance No. ____
Page 34
EXHIBIT “B”
ADDRESSES OF PARTIES
To City:
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: City Manager
To Developer:
Menashe Kozar, President and Manager
Sky Line 66, LLC
23622 Calabasas Road, #121
Calabasas, CA 91302
267
Ordinance No. ____
Page 35
EXHIBIT “C”
LISTING OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
Unit Number Bedroom Size Unit Size (sq. ft.)
Unit 6 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 8 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 12 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 14 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 19 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 21 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
Unit 25 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
Unit 27 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
Unit 53 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
Unit 65 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
Unit 68 3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
List of eleven (11) required Affordable Units is based upon Sheet A0.1
(Building Area Analysis) of the City Council approved Architectural Plans.
268