HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2021 0901 CCSA REG ITEM 08BCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of September 1, 2021
ACTION INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO.
491 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
2021-4035. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
UNANIMOUS).
BY B. Garza.
B. Consider Resolution Modifying a Previously-Approved Residential Development at
635 Los Angeles Avenue to Reduce the Number of Units from 69 to 63 with
Related Site Changes and a Condition of Approval Requiring All Utilities to be
Placed Underground, and Ordinance Amending the Terms of the Development
Agreement, and Making a Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) that a Previously-Adopted Negative Declaration is Applicable
to the Project, on the Application of Menashe Kozar for Summer Land Partners
Group, Inc. (on behalf of Sky Line 66, LLC). Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the
public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing; and 2)
Introduce Ordinance No. 491, approving First Amendment to Development
Agreement between the City of Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC for first reading,
waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for September 15, 2021,
for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance; and 3)
Adopt Resolution No. 2021-4035 approving Modification No. 1 to Residential
Planned Development Permit No. 2014-02, subject to the conditions of approval
contained therein, and reducing the number of units from 69 to 63 with related site
changes and modify a condition of approval requiring all utilities to be placed
underground. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED) (Staff: Freddy Carrillo,
Associate Planner II)
Item: 8.B.
Item: 8.B.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner ll
DATE: 09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Modifying a Previously-Approved Residential
Development at 635 Los Angeles Avenue to Reduce the Number of
Units from 69 to 63 with Related Site Changes and a Condition of
Approval Requiring All Utilities to be Placed Underground, and
Ordinance Amending the Terms of the Development Agreement, and
Making a Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) that a Previously-Adopted Negative Declaration is
Applicable to the Project, on the Application of Menashe Kozar for
Summer Land Partners Group, Inc. (on behalf of Sky Line 66, LLC)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2020, Menashe “Manny” Kozar (“Applicant”), for Summer Land
Partners Group, Inc. (on behalf of Sky Line 66, LLC), filed an application to modify a
previously-approved residential development Project at 635 Los Angeles Avenue
(Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). The Applicant has requested the following
modifications to the approved Project:
• Reduce the number of units from 69 to 63 with related site changes, including the
reduction of guest parking spaces;
• Remove a condition of approval that requires all utilities under 67Kv to be placed
underground; and
• Modify the terms of a development agreement between the City of Moorpark
(“City”) and Sky Line 66, LLC (“Sky Line”) related to the changes listed above.
The Moorpark Municipal Code allows for a Permit Modification for any proposed change
to a discretionary permit that 1) exceeds the criteria of a permit adjustment but is not
extensive enough to be considered a substantial or fundamental change in the approved
entitlement or use relative to the permit; and 2) would not have a substantial adverse
328
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 2
impact on surrounding properties and would not change any findings contained in the
environmental documentation prepared for the permit. The decision on the permit
modification shall be by the decision-making body that approved the original permit, in
this case the City Council.
A Development Agreement may be amended or terminated by mutual consent of the
parties to the agreement, as outlined in Chapter 15.40 (Development Agreements) of the
Moorpark Municipal Code. Pursuant to this Chapter, amendments to the Development
Agreement shall be by ordinance of the City Council.
Approved Project
On February 19, 2020, the City Council approved and adopted the following entitlements
for the development of the Project, known as “Green Island Villas”:
• Resolution No. 2020-3887 adopting a Negative Declaration (ND) and approving
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 (VH) (Attachment 3); and
• Ordinance No. 481 approving Zone Change (ZC) No. 2014-01 to amend the zoning
of the subject property from Commercial Office (C-O) to Residential Planned
Development (RPD). The Ordinance was approved with a second reading on
March 4, 2020, and took effect 30 days later, on April 3, 2020; and
• Ordinance No. 482 approving 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 (Attachment 4). Pursuant to
Section 19 (Term) of the DA, the Agreement remains in full force and effect for a
term of 20 years commencing on the operative date (expiring on April 3, 2041), or
until one year after the issuance of the final building permit of occupancy of the last
building of the Project, whichever occurs last, unless said term is amended or the
Agreement is sooner terminated. The Ordinance was approved with a second
reading on March 4, 2020, and took effect thirty days later, on April 3, 2020. The
Agreement was executed and recorded on March 18, 2020; and
• Resolution No. 2020-3888 approving Residential Planned Development Permit
No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 5869 for a 69-unit multi-
family residential condominium development, 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 (Attachment 5).
A copy of the original Staff Report (without attachments) is included for your reference
(Attachment 6). The Project’s 69 units are provided within 17 two-story buildings, with a
total of 18 two-bedroom units and 51 three-bedroom units. The following table describes
the approved residential development:
329
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 3
Number
of Units
Bedroom
Size
Garage
Spaces
per Unit
Total Number of
Guest Parking
Spaces
Approximate
Gross Area
per Unit
Total
Building
Area
18 Units 2 Bedrooms,
plus 2 ½
Bathrooms
2 Spaces
35
1,813 sq. ft. 32,634 sq. ft.
51 Units 3 Bedrooms,
plus 2 ½
Bathrooms
2 Spaces Spaces 2,033 sq. ft. 103,683 sq. ft.
The architectural style of the homes and recreation building is Spanish Mission. The
residential buildings feature earth-toned colors on smooth plaster finish with clay tile roof.
Each unit features a 54 square-foot recessed second-story balcony with a decorative
metal guardrail at the rear of the building. Details also include an open lattice wood trellis
above each entryway and a second-story bay window above the overhead sectional
garage door.
The single-story recreation building features 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.
The project driveway from Los Angeles Avenue will remain unsignalized and will
accommodate right-turn-only ingress and egress, which eliminates the potential for
eastbound related left-turn conflicts on Los Angeles Avenue. A secondary access (via-
easement) driveway from the Mission Bell Plaza shopping center parking lot will be
located directly east of the Project. Residents wanting to travel eastbound along Los
Angeles 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
(Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: Rendering of the approved Green Island Villas
330
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 4
Condition of Approval No. 9 of Resolution No. 2020-3888 required the Applicant to
increase the size of individual two-car garages to provide the minimum interior
dimensions required by the Municipal Code. Shortly after the approval, the Applicant
revised the plans and found that six units would need to be removed in order to provide
correctly-sized garages within the Project. This topic is discussed further in the Analysis
Section below.
Project Setting
Existing Conditions
The 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 following
table summarizes the existing General Plan, zoning, and existing land uses on the subject
property and vicinity.
Location General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Existing
Land Use
Project Site Very High Density Residential
(VH)
Residential Planned
Development
(RPD)
Vacant Lot
North Medium Density Residential
(M)
Single Family
Residential
(R-1)
Detached Single-
Family Homes
South High Density Residential
(H)
Residential Planned
Development
(RPD)
Vacant Lot
(Pacific Communities)
East General Commercial
(C-2)
Commercial Planned
Development
(CPD)
Mission Bell Plaza Shopping
Center
West Medium Density Residential
(M)
Single Family
Residential
(R-1)
Detached Single-Family
Homes
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Very High Density Residential
(VH). The VH 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 near major community facilities, business centers and major arterials.
The land use designation of VH allows a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre;
however, through negotiation of the DA, the Project was approved at a gross density of
17.2 dwelling units per acre, with the provision of affordable housing.
331
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 5
The proposed modifications to the approved Project are consistent with the existing
General Plan land use designation. In addition, the Project remains consistent with the
General Plan goals and policies identified below:
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 Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). A summary of the City’s current (5th Cycle, 2014-2021) Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation, remaining housing units, and the impacts
of the approved development are outlined in the following table:
332
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 6
Housing Type RHNA
Required for
2014-2021
New Units
Permitted in
2020
RHNA Cumulative
Totals by end of
2020
Housing still
needed/required
by 2020
Green Island
Villas as
Modified
Very Low
Income
289 Units 11 New Units 26 Units 263 Units 0 Units
Low Income 197 Units 7 New Units 46 Units 151 Units 10 Units
Moderate 216 Units 1 New Unit 12 Units 204 Units 0 Units
Above
Moderate
462 Units 79 New Units 597 Units 0 (Surplus of 135
Units)
53 Units
Totals: 1,164 Units
Required
98 Units
Permitted
681 Units
Permitted in
Moorpark 2014-
2021
618 Additional
Units Required
by 2021
63 Approved
Units
Zoning Consistency
The zoning designation of the subject property is Residential Planned Development
(RPD). The purpose of the RPD zone is to provide areas for communities to be developed
using modern land planning and unified design techniques. The proposed modification
to the approved Project is consistent with the RPD zone in that it would be developed in
a vacant lot and would provide new homes adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
ANALYSIS
Modification No. 1 to RPD 2014-02: Site and Building Revisions
The proposed revisions to the Project include a reduction of units necessary to provide
individual two-car garages with a minimum clear interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet,
as required by the Municipal Code. As described in the Background Section of the report,
the garage sizes depicted in the approved plans are substandard and range from 19 feet
in width and 18 feet in depth. Six units were lost as a result of this revision, bringing the
total number of units proposed within the Project to 63 (Attachment 7, under Sheet 3.0-
1st Floor Plan). Minor alterations to the approved floor plans were also made, but the
buildings have retained the same architectural design as originally approved (Attachment
7). Guest parking provided on-site was also reduced to accommodate the site changes,
from 35 spaces to 33 spaces. The guest parking provided exceeds the 32 spaces
required by the Municipal Code.
333
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 7
The following table describes the modified residential development:
Number
of Units
Bedroom Size Number of
Parking Spaces
Inside Garage at
20’ by 20’
Total Number
of Guest
Parking
Spaces
Approximately
Gross Area
Per Unit
Total Building
Area
11 Units 2 Bedrooms,
plus
2 ½ Bathrooms
2 Spaces 33 1,905 sq. ft. 20,955 sq. ft.
52 Units 3 Bedrooms,
Plus
2 ½ Bathrooms
2 Spaces Spaces 2,214 sq. ft. 115,128 sq. ft.
First Amendment to Development Agreement Amendment: Affordable Housing
Section 6.13 of the existing Development Agreement (DA) requires 15% or 11 units of the
original 69-unit Project to be reserved for low-income households. In light of the proposed
reduction of the Project to 63 units, the Applicant is requesting to amend the Development
Agreement to proportionally reduce the number of affordable units reserved for low-
income households to 10, to reflect 15% of the revised Project. For reference, low-income
corresponds to a maximum of 80% of the Ventura County Area Median Income, as
outlined below for 2021 based on household size.
The Draft First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Exhibit B of Attachment 9,
Draft Resolution) amends Section 6.13 of the Development Agreement as follows:
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 greater
than would otherwise be available, to provide eleven (11) ten (10) 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) ten (10)
housing units may be referred to as affordable units or units affordable to
low income households or required affordable units.
334
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 8
The Applicant has provided a revised site plan showing the location of the affordable units
(Attachment 7, under Sheet A2.0-Site Plan). An Affordable Housing Agreement will also
be required in order to fulfill the requirements of the sale of the affordable units.
Undergrounding of Utilities
The Applicant is also requesting to remove a condition of approval that requires utilities
to be placed underground. This condition is set forth in Resolution No. 2009-2799
establishing standard conditions of approval for entitlement projects, adopted by the City
Council on March 18, 2009.
Standard Condition of Approval No. 145:
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, all existing and proposed utilities,
including electrical transmission lines less than 67Kv, must be under-grounded
consisted with plans approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and
Community Development Director. Any exceptions must be approved by the City
Council.
There are three existing 66Kv high voltage transmission poles placed on the right-of-way,
fronting the Project site on Los Angeles Avenue. These lines distribute power to the
adjacent community but do not directly serve the Project site. Instead, the Project site
would obtain power from an existing underground source located on Los Angeles Avenue.
These lines are less than 67Kv and are therefore required to be undergrounded by this
Condition. On June 2, 2021, Andrew Brady (attorney for the Applicant) submitted a letter
outlining the Applicant’s request from relief from this condition (Attachment 8). Below is
a summary for each point provided:
• The cost to underground the existing transmission poles could exceed $2.3M.
• According to Southern California Edison, the timing associated with the process of
undergrounding the existing transmission poles is approximately 2.5 years.
• Undergrounding the existing transmission poles adjacent to the Project site would
not come close to achieving the larger goal of undergrounding the existing
transmission poles that run along Los Angeles Avenue.
• The existing transmission poles do not serve the Project site and instead are
electric transmission lines that run from substation to substation.
In consideration for waiving the undergrounding requirement associated with Standard
Condition of Approval No. 145, the Applicant has agreed, through the proposed First
Amendment to the Development Agreement, to pay the City a fee of $3,333.00 per unit
(approximately $210,000 for the 63 units) in lieu of the undergrounding. This amount
would be applied toward future project costs for undergrounding overhead utilities, as
prioritized by the City Council and following an identification of undergrounding priorities
for the City as a whole. A list of the revised mitigation fees is included in the draft First
335
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 9
Amendment to the Development Agreement (See Attachment 9, Exhibit B, Sections 6.3,
6.4, and 6.7 of Attachment 9 for reference).
A new Section 6.21 of the Agreement is added to read as follows:
Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee. 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
"Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee"). The Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee may be
expended the undergrounding of any overhead power lines within the City,
with those locations chosen by the City Council in its sole and absolute
discretion. The amount of the Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall be Three
Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-three Dollars ($3,333.00) per
residential unit. The Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall be adjusted
annually commencing January 1, 2022, 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. The
Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall satisfy Developer’s requirement to
underground the 67Kv high-voltage transmission lines fronting Los
Angeles Avenue pursuant to Standard Condition of Approval No. 145.
Developer is responsible for all other undergrounding requirements under
that condition.
Staff has also proposed the following Special Condition of Approval in the draft resolution
(Exhibit A of Attachment 9):
As outlined in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, Standard
Condition of Approval No. 145 shall not be applicable to the approved residential
project, except as modified herein, all other conditions of approval of Resolution
No. 2020-3888 shall remain in full force and effect.
In order to offset the impacts of the new Undergrounding In-Lieu fee to the project, the
First Amendment to the Development Agreement includes a proposal to reduce the
Development Fee, Traffic Mitigation Fee, and Park Fee. The existing and proposed
language of Section 6.3, 6.4, and 6.7 are included below in legislative format, with
existing language to be removed shown with strikethrough and proposed language
underlined.
336
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 10
Amendment of Section 6.3 of the Agreement is amended as follows:
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) (Eight
Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) per residential. unit. The Development Fee
shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1, 20212, 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.
Amendment of Section 6.4 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
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)
Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars ($11,867.00) per
residential unit. The Citywide Traffic Fee shall be adjusted annually
commencing January 1, 20212, 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 8 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.
Amendment of Section 6.7 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
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) Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) for each residential
337
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 11
dwelling unit within the Property. If the Park Fee is not paid by January 1,
20212, the Park Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1,
20212 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.
FINDINGS
Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit Findings
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, in that the Project
would provide condominiums as well as deed-restricted affordable housing 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.
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, designed in a manner that is complementary to development in the
vicinity and incorporates landscaped screening along the perimeter of the property.
338
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 12
First Amendment to Development Agreement Findings
1. The provisions of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement are
consistent with the General Plan in that it will help achieve the goals of the Land
Use Element and Housing Element and is consistent with the goals and policies of
all other elements.
2. The provisions of the Development Agreement and the assurances that said
agreement places upon the project are consistent with the provisions of Chapter
15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code because the Development Agreement
contains the elements required by Section 15.40.030 and shall be processed
through a duly-noticed public hearing process as required by law.
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 August 22, 2021.
2. Mailing. The notice of the public hearing was mailed on August 20, 2021, 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 were placed on the street frontage on August 17,
2021.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and
Negative Declaration (ND) was previously prepared and adopted for the development of
69-unit multi-family residential condominium Project with associated site improvements.
The Community Development Director has determined that the request to amend the
Development Agreement and modify Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2014-
02 to reduce the intensity of the proposed development from 69 units to 63 units is
consistent with the previously-adopted ND for the project. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the
City Council approve the requested modification and proposed first amendment to the
development agreement.
339
Honorable City Council
09/01/2021 Regular Meeting
Page 13
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). However, because the subject
application includes a legislative action to amend a Development Agreement, it is not
subject to the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this request.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action is consistent with City Council Strategy 1 (Quality of Life), Goal 1 (1.1):
“Identify Options and Solutions to Barriers for Housing for All Economic and Age Ranges.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close the public hearing;
and
2. Introduce Ordinance No.___, approving First Amendment to Development
Agreement between the City of Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC for first reading,
waive full reading, and place this ordinance on the agenda for September 15, 2021,
for purposes of providing second reading and adoption of the ordinance; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-__ approving Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2014-02, subject to the conditions of approval contained
therein, and reducing the number of units from 69 to 63 with related site changes
and modify a condition of approval requiring all utilities to be placed underground.
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Aerial Map
Attachment 3: Resolution No. 2020-3887, adopting the Negative Declaration and
General Plan Amendment
Attachment 4: Ordinance No. 482, approving Development Agreement between City of
Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC
Attachment 5: Resolution No. 2020-3888, approving Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869
Attachment 6: Staff Report, dated February 19, 2020 (without attachments)
Attachment 7: Revised Plans, submitted on July 15, 2021
Attachment 8: Letter from Andrew Brady, dated June 2, 2021
Attachment 9: Draft Resolution No. 2021-____ Approving Modification No. 1 to RPD
No. 2014-02
Attachment 10: Draft Ordinance Approving First Amendment to Development Agreement 340
Location Map - 635 Los Angeles Avenue ATTACHMENT 1
341
Aerial Map - 635 Los Angeles Avenue ATTACHMENT 2
342
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-3887
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.
343
Resolution No. 2020-3887
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.
~)¢1°~
JnlceS.Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
KyS~
City Clerk
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Proposed General Plan Designation
344
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
345
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 4
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
Address:
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
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-O)
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
346
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 5
California State Route 118 {Los Angeles Avenue) and residents will have secondary access to the
east, through the adjacent Mission Bell Plaza shopping center.
II. 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.
Ill. 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
347
'~=:~~No.
20 Lf TY Of M 00 RP ARK
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 I Fax (805) 532-2205 I moorpark@moorparkca.gov
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 (RPO)
Responsible or Trustee Agencies: The County of Ventura and California Department
of Transportation (CalTrans)
Tribal Consultation Requested: [8J YES D NO
Has any California Native American Tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1?
348
Resolution No . 2020-3887
Page 7 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 gymnas ium , 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 des ignations on the subject property and vicinity .
EXISTING LAND USES
Location Existing General Existing Zoning Existing
Plan Designation Land Use
Designation
Site General Commercial Commercial Office Vacant Lot (C-2) (C-O)
Medium Density Single Family Residential Detached Single Family North Residential
(4DU/AC) (R-1 -8) Homes
High Density Resident ial Planned Development South Res idential Vacant Lot
(?DU/AC) (RPO 7U/AC)
General Commercial Commercial Planned Mission Bell Plaza East (C-2) Development Shopping Center (CPD )
Medium Density Single Family Residential Detached Single Family West Residential
(4DU/AC) (R-1-8) 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.
349
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 8
Pending and Recently Approved Projects within the City of Moorpark
Number
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
HNU:St
er Ct
y c,
Project
Pacific Communities
Hitch Ranch
Aldersgate Senior Housing
City Ventures
John C. Chiu, FLP-N
Essex Moorpark
Birdsall Group, LLC
Spring Road, LLC
West Pointe Homes
Moorpark Hospitality
(Fairfield Inn)
Triliad Development
r
,..
f'/(!daCourt
t
t
Land Use
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential /Multi-Family
Residential
Senior Housing Units
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Condominiums
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Condominiums
Single Family Residential
Hotel
Movie Studio
EXHIBIT 1
VICINITY MAP
Location Map
Palomar Ave
--+-
-+
□
l
Size
284 Units
7SS Units
390 Units
110 Units
60 Units
200 Units
21 Units
9S Units
133 Units
108
Rooms
37 acres
• l
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14 , 2020
Page 3 of 34
Status
Approved
Proposed
Approved
Approved
Proposed
Approved
Approved
Approved
Proposed
Under
Construction
Approved
........-....
@) ms;
350
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 9
,... .. ,. -· . ~ .
Site Plan
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14 , 2020
Page 4 of 34
351
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 5 of 34
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 D Agriculture/Forestry □ Air Quality
Resources
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning
□ Noise □ Population/Housing
□ Recreation □ Transportation
D Utilities/Service Systems 0 Wildfire
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Materials
□ Mineral Resources
□ Public Services
□ Tribal Cultural Resources
D Mandatory Findings of
Significance
~ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D 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
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
D 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.
D 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 pursuan to th earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
rev1s1on or miti tion th t are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further · requir .
February 14, 2020
Fredd
Associate Planner II
352
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 11 Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 6 of 34
Initial Study Checklist
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) 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:
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S . ·t· t 19m 1can s· ·t· t o 19m 1can With 19m 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □ [8J
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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 RPO 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.
353
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 12 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 . Less Than Potentially s· "f t Less than N s· ·r t 1gm 1can 5 . "f t o
Would the project: 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation 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(9))?
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.
354
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 13 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).
Ill. 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:
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:
. Less Than Potentially 5 . ·ri t Less than N
S. ·t· t ,gm ,can s· ·t· t o ,gm ,can With ,gm ,can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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
355
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 14 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.
356
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 15
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, 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.
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 10 of 34
. Less Than Potentially 5 . ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can 5 . ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact M"t" t· Impact 11ga 10n
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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.
357
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 16 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 , the
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 , the
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.dfq .ca .qov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=68626&inline).
358
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 17
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
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:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 12 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm ,can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □
□ □ □
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_lnterest.pdf
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to a wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction, or operation?
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t ,gm ,can s· ·t· t o ,gm ,can With ,gm ,can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
359
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 18
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion.
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 13 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
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:
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?
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S . ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
360
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 19
VII. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Would the project:
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-8 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:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 14 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S . ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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.
361
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 20 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 w ill 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 wate r.
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 Nat ive 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/alguist-priolo ). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California
Map (https ://www.conservation .ca .gov/cgs/Documents/MS 48 .pd f). Earthquake Zones of
Required Investigation Moorpark Quadrangle
(http://gmw.consrv .ca .gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOORPARK EZRIM.pd f). 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 .pd f)
Advance Geotechniques -Geotech Report for 635 Los Angeles Avenue
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions , either
directly or indirectly , that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan , po licy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Discussion :
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S . ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
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
362
Resolution No . 2020-3887
Page 21 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 em issions 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/g hg boardsynopsis . pdf?sfvrsn=2).
IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . Less Than Potentially s· "f t Less than N
Would the project: s· "f t 19m 1can s· "f t o 19m 1can With 19m 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation 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 resu lt in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
363
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 22
IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
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:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 17 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
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. Therefore, 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:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
. Less Than Potentially s· ·r t Less than
Significant ig~i;~an Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □
No
Impact
□
364
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 23
X. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
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.
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 18 of 34
. Less Than Potentially 5 . 'f' t Less than
Significant •g:i;~an Significant No
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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
365
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 24 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
366
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 25 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:
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.
. Less Than Potentially 5 . ·t· t Less than
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can 5 . ·ri t 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
No
Impact
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.
367
Resolution No . 2020-3887
Page 26 Initial Study
Green Island V i llas
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:
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
. Less Than Potentially s· T t Less than
Significant ig:i:~an Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
No
Impact
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 .pd f).
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in :
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance , or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
. Less Than Potentially s· ·r t Less than
Significant ig:i:~an Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
No
Impact
368
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 27
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in·
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:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 22 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t No
Impact 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
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:
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less Than L th
S . ·t· t ess an N 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o With igm ican Impact
M ·t· t· Impact 11ga 10n
□ □
369
Resolution No. 2020 -3887
Page 28
XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING
Would the project:
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or hous ing , necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14 , 2020
Page 23 of 34
Less Than L th
S. ·t· t ess an N 1gm 1can s· ·r t o w·th 1gm 1can I t 1 Impact mpac
Mitigation
□ □
a) According t o 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 add it ion of 69 units would generate approximately 230 residents . Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would increase the City 's estimated 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 , e ither directly or indirectly .
b) The subj ect property is currently vacant. Therefore , the proposed project will not displace
numbers of existing people or housing and no impact would occur.
Sources : Project App li cation 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 -Hous ing Element.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES*
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or phys ically altered governmental
facilities , o r the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilit ies , the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios , response times or other performance
objectives fo r any of t he public services :
a) Fire protection?
b) Pol ice protectio n?
c) Schools ?
d) Parks?
. Less Than Potentially s· ·r t Less than
Significant ig;i;~an Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
No
Impact
□
□
□
□
370
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 29
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
e) Other public facilities?
Discussion:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 24 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· "f t Less than
Significant ig;i~~an Significant No
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
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
371
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 30 Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 25 of 34
Sources· Project Application and Exhibits (October 14, 2014).
XVI. RECREATION
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:
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S . ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
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:
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?
Less Than Potentially
Significant Sig:f!~ant
Impact Mitigation
□ □
Less than
Significant No Impact
Impact
□
372
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 31 Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 26 of 34
XVII. TRANSPORTATION Potentially Less Than Less than Significant
Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation 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.
373
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 32 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
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
2107 4 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
. Less Than
Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o 1gm 1can With 1gm 1can Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
374
Resolution No. 2020 -3887
Page 33
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 :
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14 , 2020
Page 28 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· ·t· t Less than N
S. ·t· t ,gm ,can s· ·t· t o ,gm ,can With ,gm ,can Impact
Impact M"t" t· Impact , ,ga ,on
□ □ □
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 Potentially Less Than L th s· "f t ess an No Significant ,gm ,can s· "f t
Would the project: With ,gm ,can Impact Impact Mitigation 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?
375
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 34
XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 29 of 34
Less Than L th
S. ·t· t ess an N 1gm 1can s· ·t· t o W"th 1gm 1can I t 1 Impact mpac
Mitigation
□ □
□ □
□ □
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,
376
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 35 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:
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:
Less Than Potentially
Significant Sig:~~ant
Impact Mitigation
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
Less than
Significant No Impact
Impact
□
□
□
□
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)
377
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 36
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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:
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14, 2020
Page 31 of 34
. Less Than Potentially s· "fl t Less than
Significant •g:i;~an Significant No
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
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.
378
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 37
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)
Initial Study
Green Island Villas
February 14 , 2020
Page 32 of 34
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?DocumentlD=68626&inline
10 . Californ ia , Department of Finance
http ://www. dof. ca .gov/F orecasting/Demog raph ics/Estimates/e-1 I
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)
379
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 38 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 Moorpa rk -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_lnterest.pdf
380
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 39 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)
381
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page
Ventura County
Air Pollution
Control District
669 County Square Dr
Venturo , Coliforn io 93003
tel 805/ 645-I 400
fox 805/645-1444
www .vcapcd .org
VENTURA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO : Freddy Carril lo, City of Moorpark Planning
DATE : July 25, 20 I 9
FROM : Nicole Collazo , Planning Division
SUBJECT : Public Review Comment for Green Villa Is land s
Michael Villegas
Air Pollution Control Officer
Air Pollution ontrol Di trict (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
Lo Angele A venue in the ity of Moorpark. The Lead Agency for the project is the ity of
Moorpark. APCD is acting as a Commenti ng Agency and is providing recommendations and
comments to environmenta l document prepared by the Lead Agency , pursuant to the California
C QA State Guidelines Section 15073 and Section 1.1 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 I and
ND. However, the following sections of the IS checklist require some attention , as li sted below .
It em I-Page 8, Item a. The environmental document did not conduct a consistency analysis with
the most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQM P) adopte d . The proposed project mu st
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 th e District· s
AQAG , Section 4.2, Proceduresfor Determining Cons istency with the AQMP.
The 2016 AQMP presents Ventura County 's strategy (inc luding rel ated mandated elements) to
atta in the 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standa rd by 2020 , as required by the federal C lean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 and app li cable U.S. EPA clean air regulations. The 2016 AQM P uses an
updated 2012 emissions inventory as baseline for forecasting data, SCAG RTP 2016 data , and
CARB's EMFAC2014 emiss ion factors for mobi le sources. The 2016 AQMP uses SCAG 20 16
RTP population growth projection of 40 ,806 by 2020 for the C it y of Moorpark . The latest
population estimation for the City of Moorpark was 39 ,223 (Ma rch 2019 , County of Ventura
RMA). An inconsistency wit h the AQMP would imply an additional 1,583 residents would
relocate to the City of Moorpark as a result of this project alone. Using the proposed number of
382
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 41
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 CO2e per Year (MT/Yr
CO2e). The 3,000 MT/Yr CO2e 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.
383
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 42
STATE OF CALIFORNJA----CAUFORNIA 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 ConseNatlon
a California Way of Life. PHONE (213) 897-0067
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 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. refer~nced 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, s11stainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California's economy and livability" 384
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 43
Freddie A Carrillo
August 1, 2019
Page 2 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 (OPR) 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 detaits 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 ejficient transportation system
to en/ranee California's economy and liv(lbi/ily"
385
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 44
Freddie A. Carrillo
August l, 2019
Page 3 of3
• 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 -~questions, please contact project coordinator
anthony.higgJl'ls~!:l~L.Ca.gov and refer to GTS# 07-VEN-2016-00308.
/ /I
Sincere~{. .J<
,:__/1'~ f
Mlf~e~lJsoN
IG,R/CEQA Branch Qfnief
c{ Scott Morgan, /state Clearinghouse
"Provide a saje. sustainable, integrated and efficienl transportation system
to en/wnce California's economy and /ii-ability"
Anthony Higgins, at
386
Resolution No . 2020-3887
Page 45
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: July 23 , 2019
TO: Freddy Carrillo Case Planner
City of Moorpark
FROM: Nathan iel 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 prov ides 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 sw i mming 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:
387
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 46
Green Island V illas
July 23 , 2019
Page 2 of 2
Co mm e nts from Advanced Plan n ing Sec tio n:
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 restr ictive 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
• Offs ite Flows
• Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices
• FEMA Maps
• Storm Drainage Plan (showing outlets and complete storm dra in network)
WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS:
Mitigation : The proposed de vel o pment sha ll incorpora te mit igation measures to address
c u m ulat ive impacts due to th e pro po se d increase in imperv io usness . Projec t shall not
inc rease peak storm runoff in a ny fre q uenc y o f sto rm e ven ts co nsiste nt w ith Dis t rict policy
and WP-2 Ordinance or , a lternati ve ly , app ly the c ity standard ; whiche ver is most
restricti ve shall apply .
END OF TEXT
388
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 47
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Honorable Planning Commission
Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner II
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
(CO2e). 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).
389
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 48
• 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.
390
Resolution No . 2020-3887
Page 49
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
" 0
ii
3 .. :,
:,,.
< ..
_@)
W Los Angeles Ave •
S1 rra A-ve
Very High Res idential
Dens ity (VH)
Very High Residential Density (VH)
116
N
A
391
Resolution No. 2020-3887
Page 50
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
CITY OF MOORPARK
)
)
)
ss.
I, Ky Spangler, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2020-3887 was adopted by
the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of
February, 2020, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers Enegren, Mikos, Pollock, Simons, and Mayor Parvin
None
None
None
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 19th day of February,
2020.
(seal)
392
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. 482
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.
2020-3887, adopting a Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01 and introducing Ordinance No. 481, approving Zone Change No . 2014-01,
for the project referenced above.
393
Ordinance No. 482
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.
394
Ordinance No. 482
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 4th day of March, 2020 .
-~ ~ .
JniceS.Parvin , Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Exhibit A : Development Agreement with Exhibits
395
Ordinance No. 482
Page 4
Recording Requested By
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
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
396
Ordinance No. 482
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 February 19, 2020, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2020-3887, 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 (RPO) Permit No.
2014-02, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 5869 including all
subsequently approved modifications and permit adjustments to the
RPO 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").
397
Ordinance No. 482
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 February 19, 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. 482 ("the
Enabling Ordinance") that approves this Agreement. Thereafter on
March 4, 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
398
Ordinance No. 482
Page 7
4.
contained in the instrument by which such person acquired such
right, title or interest, subject to Subsection 3.2 below.
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.
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").
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, each building in the
project shall have roof mounted solar panels and related facilities
399
Ordinance No. 482
Page 8
conforming with 2019 California Building Code Title 24, Part 6,
Building Energy Efficiency Standards for the generation of
electricity for each condominium unit. The system design of roof-
mounted solar facilities must be completed in such a manner that
electricity production can either be provided for each unit
independently of other units, or provided for several units and then
divided among all such units with each unit getting proportional
credit for the solar energy produced.
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.
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.
400
Ordinance No. 482
Page 9
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
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.
401
Ordinance No. 482
Page 10
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.
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.
402
Ordinance No. 482
Page 11
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.
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
403
Ordinance No. 482
Page 12
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.
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) orb) as
follows:
404
Ordinance No. 482
Page 13
(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.
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.
405
Ordinance No. 482
Page 14
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.
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) ("CFO"),
pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the
California Government Code (the "CFO 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 CFO. 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 CFO, (ii) provide any
deposit required by Section 53318 of the CFO Act, (iii) not
oppose formation of the CFO and (iv) vote in favor of the
special tax to fund the CFO.
406
Ordinance No. 482
Page 15
(c) Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City will not
accept any improvements or facilities to be maintained by
the CFO nor shall the Developer receive any payments from
the CFO 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 CFO 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
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.
407
Ordinance No. 482
Page 16
(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).
(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 RPO Permit No. 2014-02, then the
Affordable Housing Agreement shall prevail.
408
Ordinance No. 482
Page 17
(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.S(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:
Low Income Buyer
Item Detail Amount 3 Bedroom
Affordable $214,000.00 Sale
Down Payment 5% of Affordable Sales A"ice $10,700.00
Loan Amount Affordable Sales A"ice less $203,300.00 Down
Interest Rate 4.65%
Monthly 1 .25% of Initial 223.00 A"operty Tax Purchase A"ice
LMD Not Currently NIA
HOA 200.00
Fire Insurance 20.00
Maintenance 30.00
Utilities 186.00
409
Ordinance No. 482
Page 18
(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
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
410
Ordinance No. 482
Page 19
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.
(I) 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
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
411
Ordinance No. 482
Page 20
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.
( 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
412
Ordinance No. 482
Page 21
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
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.
413
Ordinance No. 482
Page 22
(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 Number of
Occupancy 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.
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.
414
Ordinance No. 482
Page 23
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
RPO. 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
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.
415
Ordinance No. 482
Page 24
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.
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.
416
Ordinance No. 482
Page 25
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
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
417
Ordinance No. 482
Page 26
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).
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).
418
Ordinance No. 482
Page 27
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
("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.
419
Ordinance No. 482
Page 28
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
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
420
Ordinance No. 482
Page 29
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.
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
421
Ordinance No. 482
Page 30
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.
422
Ordinance No. 482
Page 31
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.
423
Ordinance No. 482
Page 32
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
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.
424
Ordinance No. 482
Page 33
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Development
Agreement effective as of the Operative Date.
SKY LINE 66 LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:--------------
Menashe Kozar, President and Manager
CITY OF MOORPARK
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
425
Ordinance No. 482
Page 34
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
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, Ventura County, 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 follOVv's:
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 , 'Nith 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 Tract No. 1240, being the
Southeasterly corner of Lot 44 of 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 Tract No. 1240; thence
along the Easterly line and Southerly prolongation thereof,
3rd: South 0° 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, Book
28, Page 190; and by deed recorded November 8, 1900 , Book 68, Page 316 both of Deeds.
ALSO EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land described in deed to the City of Moorpark, recorded
August 12, ·J 988, as Document No. 88-115140 of Official Records.
426
Ordinance No. 482
Page 35
To City:
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: City Manager
To Developer:
EXHIBIT "B"
ADDRESSES OF PARTIES
Menashe Kozar, President and Manager
Sky Line 66, LLC
23622 Calabasas Road, #121
Calabasas, CA 91302
427
Ordinance No. 482
Page 36
Unit Number
Unit 6
Unit 8
Unit 12
Unit 14
Unit 19
Unit 21
Unit 25
Unit 27
Unit 53
Unit 65
Unit 68
EXHIBIT "C"
LISTING OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
Bedroom Size Unit Size (sa. ft.)
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 2,033 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
3 Bedrooms, plus 2 ½ Bathrooms 1,929 sq. ft.
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.
428
Ordinance No . 482
Page 37
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
CITY OF MOORPARK
)
)
)
ss.
I, Ky Spangler, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark , California , do hereby certify
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. 482 was adopted by the City
Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of March , 2020
and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Counc il members Mikos , Pollock , and Simons
Councilmember Enegren and Mayor Parvin
None
None
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 4th day of March , 2020 .
City C rk
(seal)
429
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-3888
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.
2020-3887, adopting a Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment
No. 2014-01 and introducing Ordinance No.481, 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:
430
Resolution No. 2020-3888
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.
431
Resolution No. 2020-3888
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.
432
Resolution No . 2020 -3888
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 2020.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Exhibit A:
~~ JniceS.Parvin, Mayor
Standard and Special Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2014-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No .
5869
433
Resolution No. 2020-3888
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
434
Resolution No. 2020-3888
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. In addition, a provision will be included in the CC&Rs for garages to
remain open for the use of 2-parked vehicles.
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall revise plans for the garages
in order to provide the minimum interior dimensions required by Chapter 17
(Zoning) of the Municipal Code.
10. 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.
11. As part of building permit application submittal, Sheet L 1.0 (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.
435
Resolution No. 2020-3888
Page 7
12. 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.
13. Final building colors and materials must be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
14. Windows facing south, west and east of the project are required to have a
minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40.
15. Durable materials are required for trim on the ground floor levels of the homes,
such as wood window trim, or¼" minimum cementous stucco coat over foam.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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).
22. 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
436
Resolution No. 2020-3888
Page 8
buildings, and common amenities to ensure that adequate facilities are provided
for future residents if phased occupancy of the units is proposed.
23. Developer shall provide proof of recordation of the Final Map prior to issuance of
a building permit for foundation and vertical construction.
24. Developer shall install and maintain functional fire hydrants on-site prior to the
stock or storage of any construction materials on-site.
25. 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.
26. Prior to issuance of grading or building permit, Applicant shall provide a "Will
Serve" letter from water and wastewater purveyors.
27. 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).
28. 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.
29. 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.
437
Resolution No. 2020-3888
Page 9
30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall annex into the Citywide
Community Facilities District (CFO) as outlined in the Development Proposal.
31. 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
32. 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-
438
Resolution No. 2020-3888
Page 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
CITY OF MOORPARK
ss.
I, Ky Spangler, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2020-3888 was adopted by
the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of
February, 2020, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers Mikos, Pollock, and Simons
Councilmember Enegren and Mayor Parvin
None
None
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 19th day of February,
2020.
(seal)
439
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
ATTACHMENT 6
440
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
441
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.
442
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.
I I I I
I I I I
443
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
444
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
445
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
446
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.
447
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
448
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
449
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.
450
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.
451
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.
452
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.
453
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.
454
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
455
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.
456
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
457
ATTACHMENT 7
GREEN ISLAND VILLAS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MOORPARK , CA
FOR
SKY LINE 66 , LLC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD , 121
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
ALL WORK SHALL CO MFORM TO THE:
2016 CBC, 2016 CRC, 2016 CPC , 2016 CMC
2016 CEC, 2016 CA ENERGY COD E, 2016 CA
GRE EN COD E, AND ALL CITY ORDINAN CES
DEFERED SU BMITTALS
1. PERI METER WALL
2. POOL .DECK , PLAY AREA ,DOG PARK
3. FIRE SPRI NKLERS
G.C. N OT E . SHT A.04o
(ACO US TI C AL STUDY) IS PART OF THIS PROJECT AND
ALL RECO MM ENDATIONS SH ALL BE INCORPORA TED INTO
THE CO NSTRU C TI ON
VICINITY MAP
~.S ---•-IC-~"'-'-s-.r· SI! o <1,Jo ---···············-····--············
CONSULTANTS
GERNERAL CONTRACTOR :
SUMMER LA ND PARTNERS
GROUP .IN C.
23622 CALABASAS RD. #12 1
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
TEL : (747)2 47-2770
E-MA1 L: INFO@SUMMERLAND
STRU CTURAL EN GINEER
NAIM + ASSOCIATES
12340 SANTA MON ICA BL VD
LOS ANGELE S, CA. 90025
TEL: (310)826-009 1
E-MAIL: NAIM@SNAI M.CO M
C IV IL ENG INEER
LUND AND ASSOC IA TE S
349 VIRGINIA STR EET #7
EL SEGUNDO , CA 902 4 5
TEL : (310)364 -3100
SO IL ENG IN EER
PETER PAILI AN
OCE ANVIEW AVEN UE #44 5
GLE NDAL E. CA 91423
TEL (818)913-5666
E-MAIL: PETER@GEOTECHNIO.COM
LAND SC APE ARC HITECT
PAUL LEWI S
13351 -D RIVERSIDE DRIVE #44 5
SHER MAN OAK S , CA 91423
TEL: (81 8 )788-9382
FAX: (818)788-3217
SHEET INDEX
C EET
8 ANALYSIS f----C=-+~: ~:t ~~:~
~~-------,'I I
RESOLUTI ON
OUND RETENTI ON SYSTEM
I
RIOR FINISHES I
AIL I AIL ' ~oET=Al'L ---------------,1
1
1-RioET"i'iiAii"L---------------,
'""LA"'DET""N""~~~LC_A_PE_P_LA_N ___________ ..,
IGATION PLAN
IGATION DETAILS
< NERAL NOTES F"OUNOATION DETAILS
C'.'." CAL SHEAR WALL DETAIL S AND SCHEDULE
::,
s
u s-
::, S-
5-FLOOR SHEAR WALL
cc S-
S-
-.r. S-:,
S-6
S-1 ATION DETAILS
S-2 ETAILS ANO SCHEDULE
S-2.
S-2.
S-3
S-3.
S-4
S-4 .
S-
-
WA
~
-4 .
S-5 1 ROOF FRAMING
~ FRAMI NG DETAILS
~ FRAMIN G DETAILS
~ ATION DETAILS
~ AIL$ ANO SCHEDULE
S-2.2
~
I ~T i
t 2ND FLOOR SHEAR WALL
S-7 ROOF FRA MING
~ CA IF RNIA ROOF FRAMING
~ f AILS
I ~= ~o 1 6 ~;s rou NDATION ETA1 s
S-2 lYPICAL SHEAR WALL DETAILS AND SCHEDULE
S-2.1 STRONG WALL AILS
I S-2.2 STRONG WALL S
FOUNDATION P
Z SLAB RE INF. D N
~-~~-------1
S-3 .1 ~ -=~----~'=-='--"-==-="c-=''7'"""-=-"'-1 I 6 I --==~=='-~=~~=~---,
Ll=1......; ~t::~t:Ztt%:tt====================j 5-1 NDATI ON DETAILS
DETAIL AN SCHEDULE
s-s-s-
s-
s-s-
5 -3. ION
~ I I ST FLOOR SHEAR WALL
~=~ j ~~g ~~gg: ~~~~N~ALL
S-6.1 : SHEAR WALL ELEVATION S
IL S AND SCHEDULE
2 ND FLOOR SHEAR WALL
SHEAR WALL ELEVATIONS
ALL DETAILS
I S AN D S HEDU
ON DETAILS
"' -cc-'e"'-+~=c"'cc-c'~""L'cLP~~~~-'-'A""~~"'50~,~ST~FL~O=o=R~S~H=EA~R~W~AL~L---
z
<
:r
"
<
"
[2.6
E3.1
E3.2
E3.2A
E3.28
E3 .2C
E3 .3
E3.4
E4 .1
E4 .2
E4 .3
[4 ,4
E4.5
Pl
P2
P3
P4
PS
P6
P7
PB
pg
F. DIRECTION
AILS AND SCHEDULE
NO FLOOR SHEAR WALL
NOTES
SOLS AND TITLE 24 FORMS
S ANO TITLE 24 FOR MS
3 +FR4 SINGLE DIAGRAM AND
DIAGRAM AND LOAD CALC S
AND LOAD CALC'S
I I N
SI TE LIGHTING PHOTO METRIC PLAN
2ND FLOOR VERAL ELE CTR ICAL PLAN
ROOF" OVERALL LECTRlCAL PLAN
TYPICAL UNITS ELE CTRICAL PLAN
TYPICAL UNITS ELE CTR ICAL PLAN
TYPICAL UNITS ELECTRICAL PLAN
ROOF LEVEL PLUMBING PLAN
ROOF LEVEL PLU MBING PLAN
">V~\~---~ul'\ IS-, te 'l.-\
I
I K. ·n
~::T~~~YW~~S~~1~,1 l
TEt · (8111) J87-ISIIJ 2
E WJ L-90A20 1CmtROtSICNS CO M
. e
8 :, .
~ liJ
UJ
w I
< en
0 er: 0
\!;I ' ' 0 0 ~ z ()
... ...
:·~r-~:: .IEC:T l :,_!E:NT
458
]
D
' "
5l
!CT DOC~~
~;
====~J~ ,',;c;;c7-,-----:=.-;' . . 2
BLRG 10 I 1
~ I
T'fr-, Al'""_T. =__._i ··-··': ! •·=--+' ~-~:
~i-
86.4
IX
_____j_
ii
I
' ________.,__
:;:
NOTES
SPACE C ALC ULATION
DRIVEWAY SP ACE . ~5 "30 s.r
11,420S.F.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
11 UNITS • 2 OEDROOl.1 S • 2 112
BA 1 HROOMS • 2 PARKING SPACES
(LIVING : 1,487.4 SQ FT APPROX.
GARAGE: 41 8.5 SO FT APPR OX.
GROSS TOT a. 1 905.9 SO fT APPROX .l
!12 U NITS -3 BEOROOt.15 • 2 i/2
BATttROOt.15 • 2 PAf~KING SPACES
(LIVING : 1 79· .3 APPROX.
GARAGE: 42C.1 SQ FT APPROX
GROSS TOT: 2 .211.~ SOFT APPIWX.'
TOTAL
RESIDENTI.A.L UN!TS
TOTAL63
PARKING SPACE S
REOUll~EO 126
PROVIDED i 26
GUEST PARKING
REOUJR:O 6k5=3 1.!i
" PROVIDED J3
RE CREATtOIJ CENTER
RECREATION
GYI.' ROOl,I
RESTROO M
STORAGE
\1,900 SO.FT.GROSS AREA i
KEYN OT ES
◊ CONCRETE WALKWAY
0 ACCESS EASEMENT
0 J"WH)E CONI IIUOUS STAMPED
CONCRETE
0 'l .'IHTE STRIPE D CROSS WAL'<
0 6' W IDE PERl.'EABLE PAVERS
~ ~~~~5;~P~oT~i PRIMA~Y
ENTRY LEVi:L
0 ~·:~1~1~~;:~~~~~:1 ~v;~~:~~l~~~R
WAY. ·116A.5
0 PLANTER
ACCESSIB_E PATH OF lRAVfa
(il AREAORAIN
NEW RESIOEI\ TIA_ BUILDlNGS WITH
COl,11 .10 1\ PARKING /..REA(SJ SHALL
PROVIDE. ELECTRICAL VEH ICLE
CHARGING AS =oLLOWS
a. FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPNKIES
WhlCH HAVE A COMMON PARKING AREM ,
Al LEASl 5'!.0F lHE 101A_ "'ARK1'-IG
SPACES, BUT N 01' LESS THAN ONE. SHALL
BE C APABLE o= SUPPO~-ll'<G FUTURE
INS-ALLATION OF ELECTRIC \IE-IICLE
SUPPLY EQU!PMENl (E\ISE).
o TH E ELECTRICAl SYSTEM SHALL
lif,VE SUFFICJEI, l C APACITV TO
SIMUL TAl..:EOUSL Y CHARG[ ALL
OESIGl'<AlED EV SPACES Al FULL RATED
M I PERAGE BASED ON LEVE_ 2 EVSE
SEPARATE ELEC TRICAL PERIW IS
REOUll~EO
C. A LABEL STATING ·::v c r,=-ABLE"
SHAL-BE POSTED tr• A C ONSPICUOUS
PLAC E AT TH:C S:CRVICE "'ANEL OR
SUB•PANi:L Arm THi: EV C HARGING
SPACL
d OUT _£TS SHALL BE 208/240 -1 3 AMP
GROUNDED AC OUTLf-(4.106.6) AAIERY
C HARGER OUTLET
LEGEND
□ ST~EET LIGIH
EXJSTl'\I G EDtSOh EASEMENT
v BUILDING ELEV ATION
~~;T~~;1~~~sug;~1gc: 4 1 l
lELWJ L~~~~~CNS.COM
z
~ '.?
t-i-+-+-+-t-+-+--< w ~
t:: -
U) s ... ...
l~~J.JEO $!~a~
COF'IS.: 71'1Tl..E !
<(~ _J-" _Jz -=> = >_J ,-.;
0<( > 0 <("\,
Oo z-< _J "'") <(I-if: _J r.f; rn _Jz C.0-< (l)w ~ c.o ~ z5 -0 z < zc5 < ,,:_ w < vi WW Vl 0:: z u Z?i 0 < :::i wa: c._ ";'!,. 0:: >--~~ a:(") er. 0
Cho "' j ~ "'< <D U) ~u
459
~~T~M:H~V:~C:.suc"!!1~ 411
TEl ,(81 8) :i.87-8832
E MM_-BO.\ZOKCTT£RO(SIGHS.COW
f,
ir--
!---ll---,
" e
8 z 0
C 5 ~
Q_
~ a:
w 8 < 0
':
0 ...J ' LL " f---5-0 ;!l z
,-------,
<(~ --~ ~
_j-N Jz -=> =
~t.rttJot:::;1f;~;i:;;i~JJL;;,k;~~;rol~~liitt~vf,j!,.ti,i'l!"~,1;t.::.'.>..!l~l7 l~;,=-;;-=-;:;-=-=-=-:i'lr;--:;.=--li',.:.:~-:,;-tr-=-c---lJI.--~-b.-~::::::-,-,•,-•-~--•-•::.,,,.::" "• ".'_ ".', "r-11 .,.-_--,,,-,.,---:-~,::::::::::::::::::
>_j ci 0<( w 0 .,: N > Oo z-"' ...J ct:,,.,
<(I-(/) ...J (/)"' Jz w c!i "' _J row w <i (/) .
c.:, u <O "'"' -----0 "' u z "' zoo "' "" w ;i vi ww (/) "' z u"tfi s "' ::J wa: Q. ~ a3 "' >-0:(; "' 0 ,,:, :'5 0 0 ,,., 0 :.<'. ,,., "' ,0 ::, Cl) NU
... ...
.:~r-':1 = .JEC:T (. :1_!eENT
"
·~~:_;;~.C:'":.f-_j _______ l -----------------~----+-.-
-----------IR-ST-Fc00R-P-b4---f-----------..... -~.~"------------------------
'-S .,....,,,,~-.... S•ff· SZ.: ; •loX -····-·····-----------·----------
460
(/) rn
0
0 < tJ
;:o
0
0 ::u
1J r-
)::.
<
~~ )ID
~
I r _2H
~ ~-
"
~
Afs...., I ~:~~--l ,.,._
t
i
-+~ -1~ + .
/4
t
~ lip
i;; 32'7 -~~
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENT IAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELE S AVE
MOORPARK , CA.
SKY LINE 66, L LC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. #1 21
CALABA SAS , CA. 91302
I
,-:~~-t ''°:".. t ~~--'~'-··
f :n 0
+ I II -1 ,s,o,o A ia Ii L . t
t .
I, 27-8"
61'9"
--,-j·<,-It ["-. /' ~ / ;;i II I "' I 57-2"
1~1· i ' ~ I 'K -'I) I· 1~ --,, ' ~ -.,,-' '>-ii ~
I I~
+
NO. I DATE I ISSUED FOR
2ND FLOOR PLAN
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ""j:l Z ;:j
10 §. ~§1=-=
09 ~;t~ ....:.
os ~-"a~ ··cr
: !'~
05 ~~8 11,..,
0 4 ls ? J, =•~111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!!!1
: !ij
01 i ~8
,-,o,....., ... , nATI"· II C HECKED BY· j D ATE :
461
Cl) I
n,
0
0 < I
t) I
t ..,.,
r-I
0
0
:::0
--0 r-
:h <
I~ ~ i
f;iii
11;,1
!!~i! !!!§,
32-6"
I Jl!i... "-. Y r -------z./:11 I
I ..-=-IJ ,-;s9 •--1 : :/ T ,/ ·11 I ~
25"6" +~-~~-1 , · 1z
~i t .
,!II -1/ ~ --,,_.,m,,
giii ,~w .a:,i ;.-}< •• !
"r
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MOORPARK. CA .
SKY LINE 66, LLC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. #1 21
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
I
I
I
I
7" t t J l ~,.
ii;!'
!!i~~ ;,,i;<
,, §
,u-6·
sr9· ++: !T £'-/ ~ / ;!i II I " I
~
"
l~I· i: ' ~-,---~< -'11 I• I~ -' -·-· ~-f 'il
j j~ I J::;
39·.5·
DATE
ROOF PLAN
57"•2"
N O. DATE DESCRIPTION "'j:!Z _;
10 J-~§
o, '""I M ~I
07 1 11:i:
oo ~,a.
m ~•B~
04 ~ ?~
!tim
l1!W . !!j,~ 1,.-}<
" !
~; ~ ~] 1----------------'I
01 i ! §
n P4Whl R V• nATE:: C I-IECKEO BY: I DATE:
462
0 8UILOING 1 \".'E S-E..£VAl1 0 /\ ,, ......
112.317 TOP Of RIOG(
106.90 TOP Of PLATE
/97.90 flN 2ND Fl
86.90 flN 1ST fl I
0 BU ILOING 1 . E/,ST ELE VA TIO~ ., .... ,,.
9B.35FlN 2tlDFl
I
I l a7.50 nN 1ST n
I
0 8UIL01NG 2 · WEST ELEVATtQN ~--, ...
m
87.JSflNlSTfl
10.6.9.0_IOE.....Of_f'..LAK_
--'1.>lilli...21!D...fL___._
86.90 m: 1ST Fl
112.m TOP or RIDGE
106.90 TOP or PLATE
97.90 fJN 2ND Fl
86.90flNlSTFl
112.767 TOP Of RIDGE
107.35 TOP Of PLATE
98.J5flN2NDfl
87.50 FIN 1ST Fl
11 2.767 TOP Of RIDGE
-107.35 TOP Of PLATE
98.JS FlN 2110 Fl
I
87.JSflNISlfl
112.317 TOP Of RIOG(
---10.6.90-1.0f....OLel.A
T az..9.0 [IN 2N D fl
86 .90 fLN 1ST fl
112.317 TOP Of RIDGE
106.90 lOP Of PLATE
97 .90flN2NDfl
86.80flN1STFL
_...1.QL J :Ll()p_Of.
__..101.J.5..J.O
08JILDING 1-NQF!THELEVATION "), ..... ('
08:JILDlNG 1 • SCUTHELEVATIQN
1 ~ .. -. ,,..
0 BUILDl~G 2 · NQ,lTH :LEVATION
~ ... , ..
112.317 TOP Of RIDGE
!06.90 TOP Of PLATE
97.90flN2N Dfl
86.90 nr~ \ST Fl
. BUILDING 1 -TYPE A
112.767 TOP Of RIDGE
07.JLTOP_Cf_P.l.AIE_._
9835FlN211Dfl
87.25FlN1SiFl
112.767 TOP or RIDGE
107 .}5 TOP Of PLAT£ ~
98.J~ FIN 2ND f L
87 .50 FlN ISi Fl
BUILDING 2 -TYPE AR
12&o5RIVfRSIOE 0RIV(-SIJIT[f 100
NORTH HOLLYWOOD. C A. 91411
ill : (818) J87 -M32
E WJL-BOAlO~CTlERD£S1GNS.C01,1
" (I) e z 0 8 F
0 <i . Cu ~
...JN
W..-:
w Cle, i; zz 0 gg
ci ss
z Ill Ill
<{~ _J-N _Jz -=> = >_J ci
0<{ w () <( N > Oo z-<( ...J "'n <{I--t/) ...J U) a> _Jz w <O <( _, (/)w w <( t/) .
c., u (0 <( <(
-0 [I) u z <( zoo <( Y. w <i! vi WW t/) "' z u~ g <( ::J wa: (l_ ~~ "' a:C".) "' 0 >-"' :s Oco ...., 0 ~ n <(
"' "' Cf) NU
463
107.50 TOP Of PLATL ~
87.50 Flt/ 1S1 Fl
0BJILOIJ\G 3 · EAST EL::\/1,TIQJ\
.... •<"
0 BUILOl,G:; -VIESi ELEVATION
>'<"•"r
112.817 TOP Of RIDGE:
I 107.40 TOP Of PLAT[
I
98.40 rn1 2ND fl
57.J5 rm 1s1 rt
0 OUILDl-.:G 4 • NORHI ELEVATION
>•••..-
112.817 TOP or RIDGE
107.40 TOP Of PLAT[
98.40 RN 2ND Fl
87.JS RN 1ST fl I _
0 BUILDING~ • EAS -ELEVA TI O~
• >•••·C"
112.917 TOP or RI0G[
112.917 TOP or RIDGE
107.50 TOP or PLAT[ 107.50 TOP or PLAT[
98.50 f"IN 2ND fl 98.:,0 flN 2ND rt
87.50 flN 1ST fl 87.50 nN 1ST Ft
11-4.0 TOP or RIDGf:
107.50 TOP Of PLAT[
98.50 RN 2ND fl
87.45 flN 1ST Ft
112.817 TOP Of RI0G(
107.40 TOP Of PL AT[
9840 f ill WO fl
87.l!i RN 1ST rt
107 40 TOP Of PLAIT
98 .40 RN 2ND rt
87.JS RN 1ST rt
I
107.40 TOP or PLATE
9B .40 RN 2ND Ft
87.l5flN ISlfL
107.40 TOP Of PLAT[
98.40 flN 2ND fl
87 .40 RN 1ST fl
0BUILO!llG3·UCRTrlELEVJ.l10'1
> .....
0 BUILDI NG 3 ·SQ..,-,. ELEVATION
1 y,.-...
(":;\ BU IL!:>I N(;; 4 -SOUTrl EL:W,TIQN '2_;, ....
112.917 TOP Of RIDGE
107.50 TOP or PLAT[
98.50 flN 2ND Fl
87.45 Rrl 1ST fl.
112.917 TOP or RIDGE
,.._ 107.50 TOP or PLAT[
98.50 rm 2ND fl
I 87.50 flN 1ST fl
98.50flN2NDfl
BUILDING 3 -TYPE C
112.817 TOP or RIDGE:
107.40 TOP Of PLAT[
9B .40RN2NDFl
87.40RN1S1rt
m
-5~Cl...illUSl..Il.._
BUILDING 4 -TYPE DR
12605RMRS()( DRIVE-SUITT:#100
NOFITH HOLL YWOOO, CA. 9 1 '"1 1
TEL : (818) Je.7-MS2
(WJL-SOAZGKCTTERO(SIGNS.CO lil
" (/) e z 0 8 F , 4: ~ il'.i ~
_J st
W<'i
w Cl Cl < zz a 99
0 1il1ii z .... ....
1:;:i:;;~_Je □ ~::1 -■_.-r
c.1:: r-·1ea ,~1,-L.e
<(~ _J-N ...Jz _:::, ->_J ci
0<( w () -,: N ;, Oo z-...J n:: "' <(I--(/) ...J (/) (J) ...Jz w co -< ..., oow w <( (/) .
<O -< -< -0 (.'.) u rn u z -< zoo -< .,;_ w :i vi ww (/) n:: z u~ 0 -< ::J wa: ..., (l_ ~~ n:: >-a:C') "1 0 "' :5 CJ<O n 0 ~ "' -< "' ::, Cl) NU
464
UiJflf_flLewi:-,
lill..flN__?N~D=fl __ _ ---9.!l.45...ruUNO__n___
II
87.J5flNISTfl 87.35 FIN 1ST Fl
107.45 TOP or PLAJ"[
98.45 F!N 2N D FL
--8U<LEllUSL£l.
0DUILOIJl G S. SOUTH ELEVl,TION
"'r ••<'
112.91 4 TOP or RIDGE
107.50 TOP or PLAT[ 107.50 TOP Of PL.Ar[
98.50 FIN 2ND Fl ------------------------------1------~"~·~="~"~'"~'~"~-~
Ii
87.15 FIN 1ST FL 87.15FlN\STfL
0 BUILCING 6 -EASl ElE\'1,TIQN
,,r-•c-
112.91 4 TOP or RIOG[ \12.914 lOP or RIQG[
107.50 TOP Of PLATE l07.50 TOP Of PL.Ar[~· 107.50 TOP or PLAIT
98.50 flN 2NO fl 9B.50 FIN 2N0 FL 98.50 FIN 2N0 fl
-------------------------------~
87.50 FIN 1ST FL I 87.50 FIN 1ST fl 87 .15FlN1STfl
0 BUILOIJ\G 6 · WES-ELEVA llOJ\ ., ... ,c-
)1:4 2 JOP Of RIDGE
---.--1
~B .. faJJIL2llil.-'L_
87.l5flNISTFl
1l4.2 TOP or RIDGE
107.45 TOP or PL.AT[
98.45 flN 2ND Fl
"1
l 87.45FIN1STFL
0 3UU)ING 6,. l\:O~TII :LEVA TION 1 .,,._,,,
0 BUILOlt..G 6-SOUTH ELEVA I ION
1 ~•r • '"
11.PlOPOfRIDGE -
114.2 TOP or RIDGE
107.45 TOP or PLAJ"[
9B.45FIN2NDFl
87.35 FIN 1ST fl
BUILDING 5 -TYPE E
112.914 TOP Of RIQG[
107.50 TOP Of PLAT[
98.50 FIN 2ND FL
87 .15 Fltl 1ST fl
BUILDING 6 -TYPE GR
~iir~~~-,,!~_su;;_~,gc: 4,,
ffi.:{818).l87-88l2
( WJ L-90,'20 KETI(ROESICNS .COM
w
Q~ ~ c,f5 0
~ ~ . <-l--+-+-+-+-+-l-+--Hle
CDQ'. Q O <7> CD t--<D ,n .., .., N -Q
<0 Z -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(/) z
0
~~
Wl(j
c,c, zz oo
...J...J
55
IDID
465
llJ.88 TOP Of RIDG[
112.22 TOP or RIDGE
106.80 TOP or PLAT[ 106.80 TOP Of PLATE
97.8 r1N NO -,. 97.80 f1N 2N D fl
186.BO f1N 1ST FL
I !I
86.50 flN !ST fl 86.80f1N1STFL
8 BUILlll'<G 7 • SOLIH ELEVA-ION
~·.-. '<"
llJ.60 TOP Of RIDGE
__ 106.8()_Il)f_O£....fl.AT[
86.50 FlN 1 1 F
0 8UILOI\JG 7 -NORTH :LEVATION ,,-.. ,,,
111.81 TOP or RIDGE
' 106 .40 TOP or PLA 1[
97.40FIN2NOFL
I m
86.4 0 FIN !S1 fl
8 BUILDIJ\'G 8 • NORT --1 ELEVATION
1 ~, ... ,,-
111.81 TOP Of RIDGE 11181 JOP Of RIDGf
1106.40 TOP or Pl.Alt JJJUJJ.Jl)J>..JlUlAil:+ _....1 06A !LIOP_Q£_P.lAJL
I
-'1.4<l-[llUNll..fL________ ______________________________ 3 9740 ON 2ND fl
m li
J R64 0 EIN 1ST Fl 66 .~0 FIN 1S1 FL 86.40 FIN l$T fl
113 80 l()P Of RIDGE
.l-='· 106.80 TOP or PLAT[
97.80 f1N 2ND fl
ffl
86.80 FIN 1ST fl
0 EJILOING 7 . EAST EL:VA HOJ\
~··•··. <"
::::.
··=;:;_-; :.._____106.80...10e__ff~
I
F==lffij-=======================-1 rm B3
----------------------I
0 BUILOl'<G 7. WEST EL:VATlON
'r• ~
I.
97 80 flN 2N D....IL_.
!BUILDING 7 -TYPE B
111.81 TOP or RIDGE
__Jj)p$.l_Of..OC.£lAIL..
974 0 FIN 2ND U
86.40 FIN 1ST fl
BUILDING 8 -TYPE G
:;~;T~i~v-!~~.5~1~411
TU . (818) J87-88J2
[ W.L-8000 KCTlER0£SIGNS.COM
. CJ) e z
8 0 F :, <(
~ Cu _J (X) w,-.:
w Cle, • zz D i5 i5
_J _J
0
ss
z (Il (Il
<x:~ _J-N _Jz _::::, = >_J ci O<x: w () <( N > Oo z-<( ...J ll: n <tr-1/) ...J 1/)"' _Jz ".J <O <( CJ)w w <( 1/) .
<( <( -0 ('.) (.) (0 m o z <( zci5 <( ,i w ;;i (/) ww 1/) ll: z (.):};
0 <( ::J wa: _J a. ~ 26 ll: a:C') ,n 0 >-"' :5 Cho n 0 ~ n <(
<D 2 CJ) N 0
466
UQLQLBJD.CL.-
.li.J.OLiLeWE......-_tQ6.JUOf...OC.J'1AI ~
O___fL________.._ -----------9715 ON 2NILfL+...
86.02 nt~ 1ST fl 86.02FlN1Slfl
OBJILDING 9 · NORTH ELE VATION
1 ~ t . •<"
J\2-9 TOP Of RIDG[
I 106. 15 10P or PLA rr 106.15 lOP Of PLA IT -! ~+ lQ§.15 TQP Of PLAT[ ,,_
97 .15 FlN 2ND fl 97.15 FlN 2ND Fl 9715flN2NPfl
166 .15FlN1Slfl 86.15flNISlHJ 66 .15 flN 1S1 rL
0 BUILD ING 9 · SOUlH :CLEVA llON
~•r • "<"'
ll0.4 53 TOP or RIDGE 110.453 TOP or RIOGE
□
106.12 TOP Ci' PLAIT ..-1 106.12 TOP or PLAT[
97 .12 FI N 2ND Fl 97.12f'IN2N0Fl !97.12flll 2NDfl
66 .12 f'IN 1ST fl 86.12 fl N 1S1 FL 66.12 nt~ 1ST Fl
f":\BUIL01tl3 1C · SOU TH ELfVAIIOIJ v 3, ... ,,,.
11 0.453 TOP Ci' RIDGE 110.4 53 TOP or RIDGE 110.453 TOP or RIDG[
□
106.12 TOP Of PLAT[ ~ 106.12 TOP Of PLAIT 10612 TOP or PLAIT
I _.s9ec7-.cel2'-'n'1N-'2e,N0'-'fl--'---~ __________________________ ---97 .12 FIN 2ND fl 97.12 FIN 2ND FL
-,-------------------------------
Ii
66.02flN1S1Fl 86.02 FIN 1ST fl B6 .02 FlN 1ST fl
0 BUILDING 'C · NORT--1 ELEW,TlON •·!"•·,.
106.12 TOP or PLA
0 BUILDING 9. 1•1:sr :LEVl,TlON
.,. .... ,q
112.9 TOP or RIDGE
106.15 TOP or PLAT[
97.15 f'IN 2ND Fl
86 .02FI N1Slfl
0 BJILOING 9 -EAST EL:VAIIQf\
"''f""<'
j BUILDING 9 -TYPE E
11 0.453 lOP or RIDGE
106.12 TOP or PLAIT
97 .12 FIN 2ND Fl
8602 f'I N ]$1 fl
0 BU ILDl NG 10 -WEST ELEVATION ~-,.. , ...
110.453 TOP or RIDGE
106.12 TOP Of PLAIT
97.!2 FIN 2ND fl
86.1 Fl N 1ST
BUILDING 10 -TYPE A
:;g3:T~~~~;,S~~•~•1 1
tn :(818)J87-88J2
( M,IJ L-B0,0.2 OKETTERO[SIGNS.C01,1.
~~ _J-_Jz
_:::) >_J
w 0~ > z-<(
~I-(/) _Jz w
_J C/)w w <i.
(.'.) u -0 z zci5 <( ~ ww (/) "' g <( wa:: Q_
"' a: C') "' 0
Oco n 0
<D :a
()
...J
...J
Cl)
5 ~
~$2
Wai
CJ CJ zz
00 ....1....1
55 (D(D
N
=
ci
<( N Oo
"'n
(/)"'
(0 <(
(/) .
<( <( <O mu
<( w :;i vi z u~ ::J ~ ca >-<D 5 :,.:: n <( Cl) NU
... ... ~:~r-• = .. JE:C:T t :i _!E:NT
467
106.50 TOP Of PLA Tt: 106.50 TOP Of" PLATr 106.50 TOP or PLA Tr -~~
97 .50 nN 2N0 fl 97.50 FIN 2N0 fl 97.50 FIN 2N0 fl
87.50 nN 1ST fl I ___ ; I _ 81.so "" ,sr FL 87.50 FIN 1ST fl
m
0 6UlLOING " -SOL TI-ELEVATION
1 ...... ....
0 BJIWll~G 11-EASl EL ::\'Ano r,. . ..... ,,.
113.50 TOP Of PLATE
86.50 FIN 1ST Fl
0 DUI Llll"lG • 1 -WCSl EL~ATIQr,. . ' . ,.,.
l12.87 TOP0fRIOG£
"1 1 T P Of PLATr 1
971 FIN2N0f
86.07 FlN 1ST Fl 86.07 FIN 1ST
(,\8UILOIIJG 17 -UDR-.., ELEVATION V •·<"•U 06JILD!fl:G 12 -WEST€LEVATIOn ., ....
112.87 TOP or RIDGE
113.50 TOP or PLATr
97 .50 FlN 2NO Fl
87.50 FlN 1ST fl
).: 97.50 FlN 2N0 ft
87.50 FlN 1S1 Fl.
I BUILDING 11 -TYPE B
112.87 TOP Of RIDG[
~ 1Q61 2 TOP Of PLAJI
86.12FlN1Slf
112.87 TOP or RlOGE
106.12 TOP Of PLAT[
97 .12 flN 2ND fl 111 .917 TOP Of RIDGE
86.02 FlN 1ST f\-
BUILDING 12 -TYPE E
~~:T~~-r!~;.Sug;!l~ •11
T0..{6 16)J67-6632
E l.lAI L-9000 Km£ROESIGNS.C~
<(g? _J-_Jz _:::,
>....1
0<( w > z-<!
<(f-(/) _Jz ":J (l)w w <i
-0 c.:, u z zoo <! ,;_
ww (/) O'.
0 <! wa: __J [)._
O'. a:C') "' 0
Oco n 0
<!) ::,
0
_J
_J
~
~
(LIN
rrl~
CJCJ zz oo
...J...J 55
[D[D
N -ci
<,: N Oo o: n (/);;;
<O « (/) . « <! (0 CD U « w :.i vi z u~ :J ~~ >-<!) :3 :,I'. n., U) NU
468
OOUILOING 13 · IJOR -.... ELEVA -ION 1 ., ... .,,,
·! 1D6.15 TOP Of PLATE
197.15 FI N 2N0 fl
186.07 FIN 1ST fl
111.917 TOP or RIDGE 111.917 TOP Of RID~_
( 106.50 FIN 1ST fl 106.50 flN 1ST fl
I I
97.!>0 FI N 1ST ft
·' II I
! 86.50 FIN 1S1 fl 86.50 flN1Slfl
111917 TOP OF RIDGE
106.!>0 flN 151 Fl 106.50 FIN 151 fl
97.50 flN 151 Fl
j 86..l5FIN 1ST fl
m
86.35 FIN 15T f t
111.567 TOP Of" RIDGE
1061 5 TOP Of PLAIT
9715 FIN 2ND Fl
I
86.07 FIN 1ST Fl
111.567 TOP or RIDGE
106.15 TOP Of PLATE
97.15 FIN 2ND fl
I
86.15 FIN 1S1 n
111 .91 7 TOP Of RIDGE
106.50 FIN 1ST fl
97.50 flN 151 n
86.35 FI N 1ST fl
I
0 5ULJl'<G 13 · SQUTM EL ;<\1/,TIQN
l >·r • '<'
03UI..DING 14 -SOUTHEl.EVATION ,,, ......
0 BUI LOI NG 14 -WESl ELEVATIO'< ., .... .,.
111.567 TOP or RIDG(
10615 TOP or PLATE
9715 fll:i 2ND fl
86.15 FIN 1ST fl
106.15 TOP Of PLAT(
97 .15 flN 2ND Fl
86.15 FIN 1ST fl
BUILDING 13 -TYPE D
111.917 TOP or RIGG~
106.50 FIN 1ST fl
97.!>0 FIN 151 fl
86.50 FIN 1ST FL
BUILDING 14 -TYPE F
~~;T~i~~~;_svg;,~1~411
TO.. (8 18) 381-81132
E WJL-60,IJOKCTl(ROESICNS.CO¼.l
<(~ _J-_Jz _:::, >_J
0<( w > z-<(
<(I--1/) _Jz ".J oow w <(
-0 (5 u z zci5 <( .,;_
ww 1/) Cl'.
0 <( wa: ..J a.
Cl'. a:C') u) 0
Oco ,,., 0
<O ::,
0 ...J
...J
~
~
~:;,
W\2
c,c, zz
1515
...J...J ss CD CD
N
=
ci
<( N Oo
Cl'.,,.,
(/);;;
<0" <(
(/) .
<( <( <O ro u
<( w ;i (/} z u ~ :J ~ ca >--<O 5 :,,.:: n <l'. CJ) NU
.... ....
~:~r-~, = .. JECT l : l-lEENT
469
112 417 l OP or RIDGE 11 2 417 TOP or RIDGE
10700 TOP 0C PLAT[:'._. -107 00 TOP Of PLAT[
ffl =
-lgP;OO rm ?NO Fl 9B .()() flN 2ND Fl
--_____ L..__ --------------
186.70 ON 151 Fl I II
h 86.7D flN 151 fl,
11 .4 17 Tf"IP t'\I" R!N"S
101.00 TOP or p1 .n, :._"7nn 1no OF PAT•
,-'
lgsoo flN N ., E,==-=--=
m
B7.00 m~ 1ST fl 87.00 flN 1ST Fl
0 BUILDING 15 · EAST ELEVATION
4 ••r • ·c
11 4.02 TOP Of RIDGE
::2
Of PlA
, .. 2NDF
II '
87.45 ON 1ST fl _ 1-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ --87.45 flN ISi Fl
0BUILOl'iG 16-N0'11HEL£VA"IOII ........
114.02 TOP Of RIO
107 107 45 TCP Of PLAT(
98:4 5fltl 2ND [L 9B4 50N won
87.22 flN 1ST fl 87.22 FIN 151 fl
0 BJILDII\G 16 • SOUlH ELEVA TICN
••r ••c-
112.4 17 TOP Of RIDG[
9800 flN 2N D fl
B6.7D fJN 1ST fl,
85 8"
06U1-Dl"-G 15-SOUTHL:Vl,TIO/I ..... .,.
112.41 7 TOP Of RIDGE
107.00 TOP or PLATE
9B .00 flN 2ND Fl
86.70 ON !ST f l
03U1-D1t~G 15 . w;:.sr ELE VATIOII ..... ..-
1BU ILDING 15 -TYPE FR ,
08UILOHIG 16 ,\\'£S1 [l:\J,&,.110:S.
•r ••C"
0 BJILDING '6· EAST EL:VATIOI\
•·1·•·<-BUILDING 16 -TYPE E
~~:T~;~~~;.S~~I~ 411
TU : (818) .381-88,2
t IAAJL-80A20 KrnEROtSIGNS.tolo!
<l:~ _J-_Jz _:::, >_J
O<l: w > z-" <l:1--V1 _Jz ':l (/)w w <i -0 Cl u z zoo " ,;_
ww V1 a::
0 " wa: __J Q_ a:: a:C') u) 0
Oco ,,, 0
<D ::,
0
_J
_J
CJ) z
0 ~
Cu"' __J-_
W\Q
C, C, zz oo
__j__J ss coco
N
=
ci
<i N Oo a:: n
V1 (7)
<O " VJ .
" " <O (D u
" w ;j_ (f) z u~ ::J ~ ca >-"''.5 ~ n" CJ) NU
... ... ~:~r-• = _JEC:T l :,_JE!:NT
470
112.817 10P Of RIDGE .. ----.i.12.81.7JOP_Of"_RIOGE 112.817 TOP or RIDGE
107.40 11)? or PLAlE 107.40 TOP Of PLAIT 107.40 TOP or PLA1£
I
~~T~~~~~sug;~,~ .. 11
Tll :(616)l67-S6l2
[ WJ l-60,/,,2:0 KCTTEROESKiNS.COM
98.40 nN 2ND fl 198.40flN2tlOFL 98.40 FIN 2ND fl
87.40 m~ 1ST fl 187.40 FIN 1ST fl 87 .J5FINISlfL
06UIL01NG 17 • \'/EST ELE VAilQN 1,, .• ,, 0 BUILDING L 7 -EAST ELEVATlQ/\ 1 )",,.,.,.
112.817 TOP Of RJOGE
107.40 TOP or PLAT[ 107.40 TOP Of PLAT[!
l 98.40flN2N0FL 98.40 nN 2ND Fl 98 .40FIN2N0FL
\ •I l 87.35 flN 1S1 fl l'1 11 1
-~------------'
I
87.35 FlN 1ST Fl 87 .40 FIN 1S1 fl 87.40 FIN 1S1 fl
0 BUILO!NG 17 · /IQRlH ELEVATION ~, ... '"'
BUILDING 17 -TYPE D
<(~ _J-N _Jz
_:::) = >_J ci 0<( w 0 <! N > Oo z-<! _J Ct:,,-,
<(I--(/) _J
(/)"' _Jz ':J (0 <! Cl)w w <( (/) .
<! <! -0 Cl u <O CD U z <! zci5 <! ,;_ w :i vi
WW (/) Ct: z u i'J,, 0 <! :J wcr: _J Q_ ~~ Ct: er:(') on 0 >-"' '.5 0<0 ,., 0 ::.:: ,,-, <!
<D ::, en NU
471
i i r 1 J1 r ' 1, ~ ~ I l l O i ~-+-------H-~-11l 6 DIJ !;:-I _ 1 rl-t
i alffi ' HHEI i
I ~ II I ~I I
I 11
I 11
11
: 11 ~
~N~)> Ii ii 1~1 °WJ[ . ... .. ····11 ._ ~ 1 1 1
l~fl lm;)~:+H ~ pE~~ ... --•m I IIR~ i5 ' ' ' -, ':.
)> I I I . l+---~~-~I, ; · ' ~ ' : : ~ -.
I I
'' '"
c~ !
Ii
i:!J ~
i5 z
1=11 •1 l·II-IHHHl·I H HI-I S
!
11 1 11 11 I ll §~"s:P' I I " I I
I : I intcr,i~~ I L:J , I r,
Ill F~ I
, I -;f ~ I, I _J I I tB I: lflll I 4$> VJ
I I •I r •
( ' I I i ! I J
T
I I
I I I I 1 D
~ I -g]Eij]T : : [m -:1 =~I D
G
•~z ;; 0
• :D ..... . :,:
i:!J m < ~
i5 z
!
l , I -I
I ILR;'' in
I \~ I I' l . □ I I I I
j 1• I ~ I J J
~
[ ! :i i J -
I
I
OATE I ISSUED F"OR .., ... z;:; GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MOORPARK . CA.
SKY LINE 66, LLC
~:~~1 =Iii
I
~ .. 6; ~===t================i1 0 !.:• ~ I ~~1 f: El ==!=I ===========11 l!!l l ~I
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. # 121
CALAB ASAS, CA. 91302
BUILDING ELEV A TIONS
BUILDING 1 CTYPE A) KEO BY: I DATE·
472
~ ; en . -<
6 i!l
m
~
i5 z
C z =a
)>
Jl
(-
•1en •O •C . -< b I
m
~
i5
?
C z =a
)>
Jl
I =I I 0l 1-1 I· H H 1-1 I H 11 -1 S
", •.. ~ " ~ e.e.,,~ '~8;
; t ij
~ Q
r
~ s
t '' --
:1 1 11
11
I I I
I I I
I 11
I I I
I 11
I
I I
:~ I
I ~ I
I I ....
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I 11
'I I1 l~~J~ I I
1rnrn i :: ~I ~' I J
'
j Ii .. Ii
i
DI ..
~l r.J
l~I
I
~ I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MOORPARK . CA.
SKY LINE 66, LLC
23622 CALABA SAS ROAD , #1 21
CALABAS AS, CA. 9 1302
I I JEil! ~!W -I
; ~ I:
.....
G
~ :;; •m • en --< •m r m < ~
i5 z c z =a
)>
Jl
□
(:
DATE I ISSUED F'OR
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 2 (TYPE AR)
"IZ oi 0
• Jl . -<
6 :,:
i!l
~ ~
i5 z
C z =a
)>
Jl
1
t
r
l ~ ~
I I, I I -!Ht
: I 1
1 :m
11: I : I E!H l ■I
. l ~u□o
11:
IJ
I
l
I I
11
1 ••
J 1 1
j
I
If
11
11
I I
I I
J
_ i tr on
; 1~ -f' " s
I
w '
,. )
~ lij ~ . ;
+
i•~i l =--;
•f-"'0•4-----1---------------JI ~Ii§ ...,
01 r i-i= ~
06 3~,
05 11~8!1 "".I
04 ~ ?J_ =
I
~~ ~ ~ ~ 1---------_j
01 i ot1§
DRAW~ B Y: ~~TE: 1~ME CKED BY: 1-o;;E: ~
473
~
l
m rn
<VL<"---------+
m----,□
---------+--+---~~~rn~, ~
L......A,DORESS
~ SO UTH ELEVATIO N · UN IT B
\._J3•16"•·-<r
--0
ffi m
-0 <>J,,.-.1~-----------------
(;;'\ NORTH ELEVATIO N · UN IT B
,.. - ---\---~-=""'°"=="""'=+ -- ---.--
n«IH IMIIOlftl'WAU.l'ENOE ----------
--D
□
·~-OF~
~
3
Y,.,EST ELE VAT IO N · UNIT B
\_Jll l f"~•o·
EB rn c______:__
ICEYNOTBIL.B:IBD
COOL ROOF Tll.f l.lCA r -40 W..TUIW.. RED
G] ~O ~t~~~~~l>JI Rffl(CT.WC[-0.-45
0 DPOSEO WOOD fASCi,.
0 ~:;; ~;:1
~1:~)~tl~~ ~APi~(FlS or PA.PER OVER WOOD. SHU.fHING L.AY[RS SIW.l
8£ INlAU..EO INOEUPEtffi.Y.
Q WOOD TREWS
0 DECOAATM W.1. META.I.. CUAAORAIL 42° l.l!N HT ,
0tl,L,\RCl.ASS
0 RAISED PLASTER TRIM W/ SMOOTH SlEEL lROW[L
[!] EXTE:RIORCl-llt,Ul[YWITHFlR(PLJ,CE
[!] -~lL~~lo~i"'LotlG RAISED PN-IEL 0ES1GN .
~ Wl[OfC.I ROOf TO WAL.Lrt.>SHtHC
~ 1/~.MINIMUI.! CEMENTIOUS STUCCO COAT OVER
~~;,~g~~~s~i,gc:4,1
TEL .(818)J87-88l2
E I.Wl-BO,t,20 KETTERDESK:tlS.~
" ai
2 w
8 ~ 0 -~ ;:::
w j r--:
< (L~ a ILO 8~ a a: al z
<(~ _J-N _Jz -=> = >_J ci
0<( w () <( N > Oo z-<( ...J °' n <(t-1/l ...J 1/l O, _Jz ':J (0 <( (J)w w <i 1/l .
"' u <O <( <(
-0 (D u z <( zoo <( ,: w <f (/) ww 1/l "' z u if;
0 <( ::J wa: .J CL N <(
Q'. ~5 a:C') "' 0 >-
Oco n 0 ~ ,.,., <(
<D ::, Cl) NU
~3J •6"• .. -0
---,c,--,,::-,,,:,.,::,'"~,,..,.,~,e,,-,,.,,-, ,-,..,.-,~,,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"===-=_=_=~;;-~;;-_,-;a;,,,a~"';,,~;;--=_=_-" __
474
(:
I
~
~
1.
~
1 ~
J
□□□□
□□□□
8 ! J!.11 ': . ,-
. □□□□I ': IDJJJ • ··• •' ~
I 1! I
GQEJEJElEJEll:J El El rn
F • ~~ g g ~ s :a:g~ [ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ; p>< i ~ ~ ~ ~~a~ ~ I~
z ££ • n < • a>< o s ~ ~ gf n ~ 0 E o~O ~ ~ 2 o ~ ~ 8 ... ~ ~ "' ~ "'5,,,~5 .s i~~
2 ' §8 ~ < ~.~ • ~ ng < ~ 0 ;,,~ ~ ~ i3~--~ ~ ~?:
g ~ g g ~-i a ~~" ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~;,, t O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ! ~~
8 a O n r n". "~
2 ° I ~~~ ~"' ; ; ~ t r
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELE S AVE
MOORPAR K. CA.
SKY LINE 66, LLC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. # 121
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
"'
(w
J--
D
I_ I ,, uri\l
~
I I
I I
I I
I I ■■Lil------, I
I
I I
..... _J l
I I
?t ffil31 ·
/,
i ffiB I i
.
NO. I DATE I ISSUED FOR
BUILDING ELEV A TION
BUILDING 3 (TYPE C)
~ _·
~
\
□
i--4 ~
' D I\
J I t
,·i·iij"~ '-fat ~~ i
. .-,. I~ ~ :t
<•<;1· f
,.,~-~T' :;:,'J ::i;i
!~~i •
t -:~
~
l
I 1i f ;
Ir · r I i ~
' ~ ' : ~mtffl : ~ I . .
I I
~l l 'U~I ;:;:;;_ --~ (I r -· T I
. 1 11 1 ~--
1 i rnc:l]1 : 1lffl7 I ··I
: ~rnc@ I I --
c~
r
-~~i :~
I ' ~~ I I i
i 11 + 1. f i
I ~;
I
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION "'PZ;;
10 Lg~l ::111::
09 l..:i ~ ------1!.
I 08 ~~,~
07 t!i:~ ~
m ~ra .
05 ~~8~1,..,
~; ~ ~J, =
02 ° •~ I o, i ~8
,....,~,.,~, nATc-, CHECKED BY: I DATE ~
475
QQEIEIEJEIEJEJ El EJEJ ~
oi > Sr' 8 ~ g ~ ~ *~~t Q ~~E ~
f · " A> " ~ ~ o o ~'"8 ~ •nS ii
• S ~ r£ ~ O ~ a .~a, a~~-; ~ 0 i ~ • ~ ~ ~ --~ ; ;;~~ • ; t ' ~ " . ~ ;;~~ ~ § 'l~,
n 8 "'s;1 ~ :a .-~;,:, 0 ,;','!;; ~ .., §; ~ il i: i;;~~:u ~ ggi:: ~ cl :a~ ~ j: ~ :~---~ ~ ~~~
g ~ ~ ~ ,;, /i::u,~~ \i:~ I ; ; ; ~ ~ i ~~~~ ~:
0 ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ~. g ;i; o ,., r ;::!"..,..,, i:;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i: ~~~~ i8
~ ; I • -~ "
(" ~~~ ~~
<! p:J
~
0 z
C z
Ca
Cl
• rn
i
i
I
11
l-1 n
'1 ~1 I \ I I
/ I I
. 11
11
11
11
~ ~ ~
I' li: l[f,I JI . I
D ~
r
r
D
J
[J
•1z s o • :c -.., o I
~
~
B z
C z
Ca
Cl
c~
~18 ; C . .., ,, I
rn
l
l
0
~~:;; • (J) . ..,
6 ~
@
~ 1 I : I lH--J~ ~
B z
~I
f
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MO ORPARK . CA.
SKY LINE 66, LLC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. #121
CA LABA SAS, CA. 91302
I' lll~l~;~ □ I I
I I
I I
11
11
I I
•1 I
,I : I l[J; ~n
01 ; 1~
J . r s
DATE I ISSUED F"OR
BUILDING ELEV A TlONS
BUILDING 13,17 (TYPED)
C z
Ca
Cl
!
l
i
j
)
r □
j I
+
I
r
ij
Q s rl~o:'
DESCRIPTION
i" i1=-= c',~,+---+---------------11 'it9 ~ ....i
M ~~--1 ~; ~: ~ I " I 05 ~" ! ,..., : ~i =~~~~~~~~,
~ ~ i
--· '.:KEO BY: I DATE:
476
-r--
.1
□-!
~ NORTH ELEVAT ION -UN IT DR
~3'16 •1.(I
.---[]
I
L
---- - - - - - - - - - - -~---,
~ I
+..matt.HIT ..
ro\,2 EAST ELEVATION -UNIT DR
\::_.JJ/1 6"•"-(:I"
i
' '
L ADDRESS
D
D
07
~
-------0
QUV,lE-+-j
----""""-"""'-,-
I 'I I l~I
____ ! ____ _ l 1-....---fNlltf.lllT.6.QOf!.+
□--
0 SO UTH ELE VATION -UNIT DR
\.::_}Jrie--,-0
1Ql'CF IIDCE
-----~~-------------------------------------~+ -~-----------------------------
m
----==tJ ----------------~
0 WEST ELEVATION -UN IT DR
\.:_J3l16 •1".C
<EYNOlB!Ls:e<>
COOL ROOf TILE I.ICA f-40 NAT\JRAI. RED GJ ~~ful_lO E~~~~~~]i>W! REflECTJ,NC[-0.45
[!] EXPOSCD WOOD fASC\I\
~ ~~i~ ~,,t'i,TH~~}~N~ ~Al'i~ERS or PAPER CN(R WOOD . SHEATHING L.AY(RS
StlALL 8t INSTALLED INOEPENOElffi.Y
Q WOOD ffiEWS
[D DECORATIV[ W.1. MCTAL CUARORAJL 42° MIil HT
~ CLEAR CLASS
[2J RAISED PLASTER TRI ~ W/ SMOOTl-1 SlHL TROwtl
[!] [XT(R!ORCHIMN(YWJTHnREPLACE
[!] "lli1Lc=r~fLONG IWSCO PJ,N[l O(SIGN
~ UN[ or G.I ROOf TO W"1..l. fl.>SHING
G ~~~-1,0NIMU~ C[tJ OITlOUS STUCCO C0,1,,T OVER
~~:T~;I~ v...?~;,S~~l~ 4 l 1
TD.. (616) 387-8832
E "'-"l l-llOAZOK(Tl(ROESIGtlS.Co...!
w
Qa:it: ~ 2
~;
0
1-+-t-H-t-H-++-II~ c< . o:
(DO:: Q O O'I <0 r--<Cl "1 ..,. ,., N -0
<O z-000000000
Cl),,..._
" ~!5 e Fw
8 ~~ 0 -...J ....... ~ Ws:t
w c,c, • zz
0 1515
...J...J
0 ~~ z .... ....
I~ C ;.1.JE:D ~:1-a_.-r
c.1:: ~·1e:. -~,,-L..e
~~ _J-N _Jz _::::, = >_J ci
0~ w () <( N > Oo z -<( ...J "',,.., ~I-(/) ...J (I) m _J z ".J <ci <( (/)w w <( (/) .
('.) u <O <( <( -0 00 U z <( zci5 <( .,;_ w ;i vi
WW (/) Cl'. z u t/,
0 <( :J wa: _J o._ ~ a3 Cl'. a:C') "' 0 >--<D :5
C,<0 ,.-, 0 :,,:: ,,.., <(
<D ::, Cl) NU
..... ....
::•r-~ =--IECT ( :1_lE:iNT
477
0--
D
C ~a ------m
""""""'
(7'\ NORTH ELEVAT ION -UN ITE
~3116'•1"..C"
-------EJ
I ,,_..aecacR.QCfl
0 ;,,~~'.~ELEVATION · UNITE
I 1TCf>a=Pl'.)QE
FNBH EOCN) R.00A I
~
lQf'_OF..tL.AlE--+-
--~
D
I-ADDRESS
I
□---------' ADDR(SS __.!
1a>a=ADCE I
• -------0
Ir'
I ,
,lOOR(SS J
'"'"'" __ i~----------'-----[] l...-AODRtsS
,....,!HXX)fUXlA I
1--------~ I
--0
~ CL.fAAGI.ASS
[D RAISED Pl.ASTER TRl t.l W/ SMOOTH STEEL TROWEL
[!] £XTERIOR Cl"UMNEY",ilTH nR(Pl.ACC
[!] "Mth~~c°~"LOtlC fWS(O PA.NEl O(SIGN
~ Ut-lE or C l ROOF TO WAU. Fi.ASH INC
G 1/o~ MIN IM UI.! cr1,1nmous Slucco COAT OVER
<EY""1Bl>EOBO
COOL ROOr TILE MCA. r -"-Cl tlA.TIJR,IJ. R!:O GJ ~~~~o [~~~~~~it.AA RErucm1CE-O.-t~
0 (XPOS£0 WOOO FA.SCIA
12] ~~;; ~loJ.RJ~;~)~N~!~ ~A.Pi~RS
OF PA.PER OYER WOOD. SHEATHING LAYERS SHAU.
8 £ llil.-u.EO INO!)-IP(NlLY
Q WOOD TR(LUS
Q OECOR..o.TM W.I UE"T"'-. CUAROR,tJ L 42" l,A ~I Hl
~~R\~~~~;_s°c~~l ~\411
~WJL~~~f~~ESIGNS.COM
" 2
8
a
IB
w
ii
0
ci z
<{~ _J-_Jz _::, >_J
O<x: w > z-<(
<{I--V) _Jz w
_J C/)w w <i
(5 u -0 z zci5 <( "-WW (/) Ct:
0 <( wa: _J 0.
Ct: a:C") u) 0
Cho n 0
"' ::,
0
...J
...J
8 .
~
I u,
w
w
~~ 0 ......
F C
<(~
iii~ ...JO>
Wlli
c:, c:, zz
1515
...J ...J
~~
N
=
ci
<( N Oo
et: n
(/) a,
<O <(
(/) .
<( <( CD (Du
<( w <f (/) z otfi :::J gj o3 >-"' :5 ~ n <C (/) NU
478
1,1 l•I I-II-IHI-I
~~ r.. ms·
i l ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
I· l·I H 11 -1 ~
1
ii!
1
11
1
f t
I ' ' ~ IQ ~ ,.. r ~r s , . 1 ~ · I I • s
I l ' , I ~ : . " I,\ I I I , I , 1 , "
IEEEE I :: I : IIB I 11
11
11
I I
I I
w I I I
I I I ~ ~ .---------.-'-----I I I I : ::i I I I /~ 11
II ·~ I II
~,.) I I f;; I I I □. l :;; I 11 11 --6 I I I
I l "" '""''"17-S"n\1 '.' I I I
I li!ll'l:l=m~ ~ I I I
I =a I I I ~
I
I
I , I I
I I I I
: : I ~ : :
I : ~f3B 1 ::
I I T I I I ''
f f
f I I I '
□
~·-
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I c~ s~ I -1-
I I I e a;
l -,-r I I ;
i I
,~]1w~., 1---r --~, I~-c.i-;r : ~•::-~:
I
I
~
~ 1:
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS AN GELES AVE
MO ORPAR K . CA.
SKY LINE 66, LLC
2 36 22 CALABA SAS ROAD. # 121
CALABA SAS . CA. 9 1302
'-+; I
)
1li~;l;UJJ I!
!® i
~
II
NO I DATE I ISSUED FOR
BUILDING ELEV A TlONS
BUILDING 14 (TYPE F)
...
I
I D I§ 1.1
I I
I I
LL
J 6 ! ,, f
,~v . DATE D ESC RIPTION '"'j:l z;;;
~~ ~;J!l =-'i
08 ~259
01 ~~F~I
M ~iJ. : SEi~
m I g ~ ~; ~ ~ §1-----------'I
479
1=11 °1 HI-IHI-I
i; ~~ ; d,
~ f.~;;
I ~:
~ <,
~ ;
" ' ~ p,
~ ~
1-1 1·1 H H I-I ~
■
i I ij
~
B
JI 'T
I 1 l I
'I I I I
I I I
I I
I
I I
I I -□
I I
I I
I I
1i ''
..; )>
I I
• en I I
. -<
6 ~ I I
m I~-
< )>
I I ,
-<
-
6 I I ·•··· I ':" I I
C I I
z =< I I c---
-n I I = ---
:0 I I
I I
I I ...
I I 1::.
I I
[IEBEE t ii
1·:
1:-
! f ~ '
cf®
I J
1 □I L i -✓~'
1 ·; !fl~·E!rl
("
~~:'i • m • en
' -<
6 ~ r~ ~i;
~ -< 6 z
C z =<
:ll
I I
l ! ! u I i , I a
p . ' '
GREEN ISLAND VILLA
63 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
635 LOS ANGELES AVE
MOORP AR K . CA.
•n ?i)
t r~ -t
Ii ~
r r
I I I
I ~ I I
: [lrntm l ::
I I I
I I I
I I I
I n
G
~ z
"0 • :0
' -< . :,:
~ m < )> -< 6
':"
C I I z =< I I
-n I I :0
I I
I I I
I Ill !! I
I
I
I I I
I I I 11:. /
I
I I I l . f lli
LJ I I Ii l I
i
~
).
I I f 1 I
! r
I I
I I
II Ti 1711 11
1l _
c.:.
•~en a; 0
•C --< . :,:
m
r 'I ~ ■:I I I I I, -< 6 z
~1--■, I I I I'
-<
-n
:0
r .,.
t ';: ! "/Jy it ~I l' Ii ~ ,. ~ .. + ---
DATE I ISSUED ~OR "'pZ ~ DATE DESCRIPTION r ~ §
1
=-;
o, ~Iii -
08 ~~~~· (
07 ~~io
06 ~::::8~
05 ~ p ~
o, ~ ~~L ---------SKY LINE 66, LLC
23622 CALABASAS ROAD. # 121
CALABA SAS , CA. 91302
BUILDING ELEV A TIONS
BUILDING 15 (TYPE FR)
oJ ~ . ~ ~~ --=a========--'F'e="""'-91 ~ g CHECKED BY: I DATE:
480
□-----+-
~ f1818ECODR.OOR
I FNI-IFlll'TR.OOII
G-------:,_ADDRESS .oJ>ORESS -r :,_f,ODRESS
~ NORTH ELE VATION -UNIT GR
\._J3H 6"~1-0·
·1 I
'ltlf'CFl"I.ATE
-+""1-~-~=~~~==============================="~~-="""'°=""""=+1
.m ,~-
I ~ - - - - -
----------------------D--1-----HffllI-"-""'-+
j,~IBXlfPf\,OCfj
~ SO UTH ELEVATION -UNIT GR
\_J 3116 •1-0
j -t
mi m
I
L_________Q
D
□
ADDRESS __;
,...®.
__/ ~
1 l
FNl-l &BXlN) R..OOR !
L -~-----------------
,,_,IEXK:lfUXII I
.. UHL~-------------------~
G WEST ELEVATION -UNIT GR
\_:..,,)3116'"•"-0
______IllPJlf'_fl.A~
•--0
_fNHIHlf..B.Q'.11-+ -----+-
~ CLfAR GlASS
0 IWS[O PlASITR TR!l,I W/ S1,10QlH STEEL TIIOW[L
[!JD(T(RIORCHIWl E'Y WITHflREPlACE
[!] WEh~tl(~:fLONC fWSEO P.WEL DESIG N
~ UHE or G.1 ROOf TO WAU fl>SHING
~ 1/~ IJ INl t.l UM C[l.l [NTIOUS STUCCO COAT OVER
""""""LB'.leO COOL ROOr TILE MCA f" -40 IIATUIW.. RE D GJ i~~!,lD E~t~~~.iaOLAR REFL.ECTANCE-0.45
G EXPOS ED WOOl'.J HSCV,
[2J ~~~ ~~l~r:~)~N~~ ~,_pi~RS
or PAPER MR WOOD. SHEATHING lAYERS SIW..i.
BE1trTAU£01NO[Nf>£NT LY.
Q WOOD TREL.l.JS
~ OECOAATM W.1. IA ETAL CUARO~L 42" 1,1111 HT
~~:T~l~~~-5~~1 ~ 4 I 1
r1-~L~~~.7~.,gESIGNS .CO"
en---~5 . FW e ~~ 8
~ _J
~ W<O
c,c,
w zz • gg 0
ci
55
CDCD
z
<(~ _J-N _Jz _::, = >_J ci 0<( w 0 <! N > Oo z -<( _J "'n <(I--(/) _J
(/)"' _Jz w (0 "" _J C/)w w <i (/) .
0 u <O ""<( -0 (Du z "" zci5 <( "' w :;i (/) ww (/) "' z u;J, g <( ::J wa:: CL ~a§ "' >-a: C') u') 0 <D :s
Oco n 0 :,,'. n <(
<D ::, en NU
481
C-C
A4.20
G.I. GUTTER. TYP .
----Hc----~--;,8=E,>'I.-H'----------~H
w THRESHOLD AT EN"TRY TYP
A7 .0
~--------+-
TILE COTI NG
42° GRAB BAR
,\,---------·-· -~·""<
RE STR OOM 1
A4.20
~ ROOF PLAN ~ SCALB3/l6'•f-O'
TILE
WAIN SlCOTlNG
RES TR OOM 2
w
0..
~
WIN DOW SCHEDULE
ll'.
0
0 a WIDTH Hl[GHT ROO M
.;· 5·xe·-2· HAU.
15· -O"X8' 2" RECREATION / GYM
C 12·-s·xa· 2· BEDROOM
o e·-o·xe· 2" BATH
FRAME MATL
"-
"-
"-
"-
FRAME flN GLAZING
"-DUAL GLAZING
~ l;tA,I NG
"-OU"1. GLAZING
0U"1. GLAZING
TYP( MAtlUrAC. U FACTOR SHGC REMARKS
1 .J O .21 lrru p
'" 1 TE MPER[O GLAZING
2 .JO .21 TEMPERE D GLAZI NG
J '" .21 TEMP[R[D GLAZING
TYPE A
w
DOOR SCHED ULE ~
NUMBER flR( TYP(
A c,. ' ' CLOSET
~f ~7:C".'11,,.S-Q-!i"l! :l •1•X ··········-------··--·-·
MATERIAi..
"-
"-
/>J.
WO
WO
,....,..,
/>J.
/>J.
/>J.
WO
wo
T[MPCRE O GLASS
10.iPERED CLASS
TEMPERED GLASS
,::
0 a z
§;
TYPE 8 DOOR + WINDOW SCHEDULE
TYPE B
TYPE 2 TYPE
0
c-c
A4.20
-------------
r 5Xfll£VC1.w,()W(;
i./t ACCCS-Sl9U _ "<:
L.~--' ~;;;;:=:::;;,:;:;~I
I
I
I
I
POOL
EQ\JI'.
--1 -
GYM
fo0 FLOOR PLAN
V SCALE:3/l6"•f-O'
RECREATION
CENTER
RECfEATION
------0
DOG PA RK
( ~
:i i~-\._ -~ 7 : : l -, I [ i '--.A___J J '-AJV \....,vv-Y '-(__,,v-Y' W~~~~-~'I, ~----J---+~-;~•,,, ...... ~-+-~~-~~~-~~~Im __
f'oo\. PAR KING ENLARGEMENT
~ SCALE: 1/8' • l'-0'
3
= -----,
0 ~PAIQolQac»l.t7'X2,f'
0 ACXE!l!!e.EemWCl!:IIIQN
~~:r:-r~~~ YW~~s~~ 1~ • 1 ,
~[~l~a~~
7
~£SICHS.COM
<{~ ....1 -N ...J z -=> =
>_J ci 0<{ w 0 <( N > Oo ~~ <( ....J Ct:,,.,
(/) ....J (/) a, w <( ...Jw .J <i. <O (/) . w <( <( Q2o c:, u <D [D u z ::i . zci5 <( ,,;_ w
Ct: z <( (/)
WW (/) u;;i a <( ::J wa: .J 0.. N <( ll'. ~5 a:C') (/) 0 >-
CJ co ,,., 0 :,.:: ,,., <(
<!) ::, Cl) NU
482
1t>P OF fOXlE
lt>POFfOXlE
""-FffiTR.OOII
W~ ,o;r...-;c-_..,,._ S-U:-S-11 0 •1•X .... . ... -··· ·······
COOL ROOf CONC. TIL£
BOIW. DURAJ..ITE CSP.-'Jtl. 600
CRR<:#1D0942-0018
SOLAR RCfLCCTANC[ -0.19
TliERI.IAL EI.IITTANCC -0.90
NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION
COOL ROOf CONC TIL[
BOIW. DURAUTC fSP.-'Jti. 600
CRRC f 10 09~2-0018
SOLAR REfLECT.-.NCE -0.19
THC RIJ.AI. EtJ ITTANC[ -0.90
ACC[SSIBLE[tflRA.tl CESIGN sec OCT....il 10 Otl A0.78
15
~
········1··········· ··••·••·--1
15
~
SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION
lt>POFfOXlE
TOf'OFf'LATE I
Flt FHl'TR.OCIR l
lt>POFfOXlE
-+-
""-""'R.OOII
lt>POFADQE
j TOf'OF f'LATE
Alf'f'8TR.00fl
TOPOFRDCE
Fltfff3TR.OOA
COO!. ROOf CONC Tit£
BOIW.OURAUTE:ESP..nA600
CRRC I 10 0942-0018
SOI.AR REfl£ClM<C[ -0.19
THERM.AL[l,I ITT.-.NCE-0.90
EAST BUILDING ELEVATION
COOL ROOf CONC. lll[
BOIW. OtJRALHE CSPA/lA 600
CRRC H 10 0942-0016
SOL.AR REF1..CCT.-.NCC -0.19
lt>POFfOXlE
JOP OFPL,AlE 1
Flt Fftl'TR.OCIR ,
TH[Rw.i.. f 1,1ITT.-.N CE -0.90 TOP OF fEClE
WEST BUILDING ELEVATION
CO flNISH _/
PAf'ER-
AL IJ\lH
""-FffiTR.000\
1260~ RMR510C ORIV[-SUIT£f l 00
NORTH MOLL YWOOO. C"'-9 141 1
Ttl , (818) J87-MJ2
[ l<Wl-OOA.Z Ol<ITTERO[SIGNS.CO"'
a:
~ w
()
~ z :::,
::i;
::i;
0
()
" I
CJ) e z
8 0
F , < ~ Cu
....I w
w c:J < z ~ 0 Ei
....I ;;
5 ~
ci ID ;;; z .... ....
1$3-S:.LJEC :::3 1·aairT
Cl::IPIEa --rn-'L.e
<{~ ..J-N ..Jz _::::, ->..J ci
O<t w 0 <[ N > Oo z-<[ _J °' n <{I--l/1 _J
1/) a, ..Jz w <0-<[ _J oow w <( 1/) .
<[ <[ -0 c:, u <O (D u z <[ za.i <[ "' w :ct(./)
WW l/1 °' z u~ 0 <[ ::J wa: _J (l_ ~ a§ °' a:C') "' 0 >-<D :s Oco ,,, 0 :,0::: n « <D ::; Cl) NU
483
DECORATIVE MET AL GUARDRAIL CLEAR GLASS
..... r--
8 SHROUD AND RAISED EXTERIOR PLASTER
11 PLAYGROUND
11 '11
1111
1111 ===--------
RAISED PLASTER TRIM PLANTER BO X ON BALCONY RAILS
5 OUTDOOR WALL LANTERN
10 WOOD TRELLIS
11505 AMRSIOC ORM:-SlJITtf HlO
NORTH HOU.YWOOO, CA.. 91 4 11
m.,(8 1l)l87-8&l2
C 1,1,1,1.-IIO,U~.COM
w
g..;, ~
~~ o1-+-+-+-1-+-<r+-i-+-11~ ~~ g ~g~s~~is~o 0
~
~
~ rn w a ill ~
~ z a:
w ~ < 0 a:
0 ~!!?_
z w z .... ....
1<;..1;=;;,1.J ec !-':::;1-•~
c: 1:.: r,:.•1 ea ,-.--1-e
.... .... r·r-" ~ .IECT ( :._)Ef:NT
484
L---------------Page: T -04
Architectural Products
Mwvactur .. r:f c.t GRO,GRC tnd FORT'ON M3 ~
1'816 Yan CAt1«15 Tll:8181781-4141 Fu:118f166.1010
L-----------'------Page : T -o 1
E AGEL 8709 EL MOR ADO BLEND
C L ASS "A " ROOFING TILE
C AS T STO NE SURRO UN D
FAS CIA
RELLIS
1
STE AM WHITE
STUCC@TRIM
MEL TED ICE Cfl.EAM
FAS CIA
TRELLIS
S'ifUC<D @ 'J'RIDM
MAu lB U COAST
FASC IA
T REL LIS
4
INFORMA L IVORY
S'iFtJTCCO li'R!I!M
CANYON TR AIL
BUILDING COL O R LEGEND (TYPI CAL)
BEHR COLORS
1211015 AMRSl'.IC ORM:-SIXTEI ICXI
NORTH HOU..YWOOO. CA. 81•11
TU , (1111) llJ7-M32
C 1W. -BGUOl<rnt:RDCSIGHS.COM
«
~
a Cl) w w ~ ~ ~ z
II:
~ ~ a
0 ~ ~ z
j[g ;:::; ...Jz ,;;;,, _::,
>...J
Lu
ci
O<t () <( N ~ ...J O o ~~ "' "' (/) ...J (/);;;
Lu ...Jw ..J (0 'J, . ~o Lu <( (0 <( « " (.) CD U z zoo « ,i: w ~. z <("' ww VJ "' ::J O ~ 0 « wee ..J &: >-~ co a::o, .,., 0 ~ <D :5 Cho "'0 Cl) "'« <O :::, NU
... ...
r:•r-~ = .. JECT ,:l_)E!:NT
485
WEST\294499655.1
DLA Piper LLP (US)
550 South Hope Street
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2618
www.dlapiper.com
Andrew Brady
Andrew.Brady@us.dlapiper.com
T 213.694.3108
F 310.595.3406
June 2, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Freddy A. Carrillo
Associate Planner ll
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Email: fcarrillo@moorparkca.gov
Re: 635 W. Los Angeles Avenue – Green Island Villas
Request for Waiver of High Voltage Line Undergrounding Per Special Condition No. 33
Dear Freddy,
This law firm represents Sky Line 66, LLC (“Applicant”) in connection with its 69-unit multi-family
residential development project located at 635 West Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 (the
“Project”). Per your request, this letter provides a request for a waiver and justification for the request to
waive the requirement to underground certain high voltage electrical lines adjacent to the Project site
along Los Angeles Avenue.
On February 19, 2020, the Moorpark City Council approved a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Residential Planned Development, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and adopted a
Negative Declaration for the Project. The approvals incorporate “Standard Conditions of Approval,” which
include Condition of Approval No. 33, adopted for the Project via Resolution No. 2020-3888, which states,
“[p]rior to issuance of the first building permit, all existing and proposed utilities, including electrical
transmission lines less than 67 Kv, must be under-grounded consistent with plans approved by the City
Engineer, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Any exceptions must be
approved by the City Council” (“Condition 33”).
Following the City’s approval of entitlements for the Project, the City took the position that Condition 33
requires undergrounding of certain high voltage electrical transmission lines operated by Southern
California Edison (“Edison”) that are in the public right of way and run along the northern side of Los
Angeles Avenue adjacent to the Project site (“High Voltage Lines”).
The Applicant’s specific request is that the City waive the requirement to underground the High Voltage
Lines. To clarify, the Applicant is not requesting relief from any other electrical line undergrounding
requirements pursuant to Condition 33, just the High Voltage Lines.
ATTACHMENT 8
486
City of Moorpark
June 2, 2021
Page 2
WEST\294499655.1
The justifications for the waiver request are as follows:
The cost of undergrounding the High Voltage Lines is substantial and would bankrupt the Project.
Edison estimates the work could cost $2.3 million, which cost could be subject to “significant
increases due to various known and/or unknown reasons.” (See, Attachment A, Edison “Rough
Order of Magnitude” cost estimate.) We also note that the Project is already paying over
$3 million in fees to the City under its Development Agreement. This additional expense would
bankrupt the Project, making it unfinanceable.
According to Edison, the timing associated with the process of undergrounding the High Voltage
Lines is approximately 2.5 years and consists of many steps that are subject to further delays at
any point during the process. In accordance with the language of Condition 33, this work would
moreover have to be completed before the Applicant could obtain any building permits for the
Project. This long, uncertain and costly delay in being able to commence construction would
further ensure that Project construction would be unfinanceable. (See, Attachment B, email
exchange with Edison regarding undergrounding process.)
Undergrounding the High Voltage Lines adjacent to the Project site would not come close to
achieving the larger goal of undergrounding the High Voltage Lines along Los Angeles Avenue.
As proposed, the undergrounding would only apply to up to a 600-foot span of the High Voltage
Lines along Los Angeles Avenue adjacent to the Project site. This would constitute only a small
fraction of the approximately 1.5 miles of High Voltage Lines running along Los Angeles Avenue
in the City, which runs from the Edison Moorpark Substation on Gerber Road east to Spring
Road. Moreover, east of Moorpark Avenue down to Spring Road for approximately half-a-mile,
the High Voltage Lines run adjacent to existing single-family houses, which are unlikely to be
redeveloped at any point in the foreseeable future (there is also uncertainty as to the
development of commercial parcels on the same road). Accordingly, undergrounding the High
Voltage Lines in a piecemeal manner as Los Angeles Avenue redevelopment continues is
unlikely to result in the undergrounding of the entirety of the lines. Notably, the Special Condition
that formed the basis for Condition 33 was adopted by the City Council in March 2009 – over
twelve years ago – and the Project is the first proposed redevelopment of a property along Los
Angeles Avenue to be asked to underground the High Voltage Lines. It would seem a more
holistic solution may be a better means of resolving this issue.
487
City of Moorpark
June 2, 2021
Page 3
WEST\294499655.1
As confirmed by Edison, the High Voltage Lines do not serve the Project but are rather electric
transmission lines that run from substation to substation. (See, Attachment C, 2/1/2021 email
from Edison.) As stated in our prior letters dated March 22 and May 10, 2021, we believe that this
fact makes the request to underground the lines legally unenforceable under the “nexus” and
“proportionality” requirements set forth in the Supreme Court cases Nollan v. California Coastal
Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 838 (1987) (“Nollan”) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 386
(1987) (“Dolan”). Under Nollan and Dolan, the City must provide evidence in the record and
findings demonstrating: (1) a nexus between the requested “exaction,” i.e., the request for an
improvement to a public facility, and an actual burden the project places on a legitimate
government interest; and (2) rough proportionality in scale between the exaction and the project’s
impacts. (Id.) These rules are rooted in Constitutional takings principles and fairness
considerations, namely, that it is improper and unfair for a City to shift the burden of paying for
public improvements on developments that do not impact the facilities to be improved. We do not
think the demand to underground the High Voltage Lines meets these legal requirements
because no findings establishing a nexus and proportionality were made by the City in approving
the Project, the High Voltage Lines are not part of the Project, do not serve the Project, and we
do not believe the large expenditure required to underground them is proportional to any burden
the Project places on a legitimate governmental interest.
Because Condition 33 does not mention the High Voltage Lines, we do not believe any exception
or modification to Condition 33 would be required to waive the City’s present request to
underground the High Voltage Lines.
Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
Andrew Brady
Enclosures: Attachments A-C
cc: Karen Vaughn (KVaughn@MoorparkCA.gov)
Douglas Spondello (DSpondello@MoorparkCA.gov)
488
Friday, October 23, 2020 at 04:14:32 Pacific Daylight Time
Page 1 of 2
Subject:Rough Order of Magnitude - High Level Cost Es9mate for Budge9ng Purposes Only
Date:Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 1:33:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:George Perez <George.Perez@sce.com>
To:Ma9lda Dahan <ma9lda@summerlandpartners.com>
CC:Manny Kozar <manny@summerlandpartners.com>, Liat Kozar
<liat@summerlandpartners.com>, Kris9 Kandel <kris9@idconsul9ng.us>, Darrell Gordon
<Darrell.Gordon@sce.com>, Bernardo Ochoa <Bernardo.Ochoa@sce.com>
ACachments:image003.png
Hello.
Per our previous discussions, SCE has been approached by Summerland Partners to overview the poten9al
Under Ground Conversion of SCE’s Double Circuit 66kV Transmission line. This would include three spans at
approximately 600 linear feet. Also included as scope is the poten9al Circuit Breaker Replacement at
poten9ally 3 loca9ons, 600 linear feet of Civil Construc9on of a 6 duct bank trench, including Under Ground
Vaults, and two Tubular Steel Poles.
This work would poten9ally take up to 24 months to perform from project ini9a9on to comple9on, pending
This work. At this level of design and engineering a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) would be es9mated for
budge9ng purposes only, would be in the neighborhood of $2.3 Million.
Please be advised, this ROM preliminary high level budget es9mate is non-binding and is being provided
without the benefit of plans and engineering. The ul9mate project cost will therefore be subject to significant
increases due to various known and/or unknown reasons and condi9ons including without limita9on: the
availability and price of labor and materials, the current ITCC tax rate, field condi9ons, addi9onal
requirements or changes deemed necessary following final engineering, environmental mi9ga9on,
acquisi9on of required land rights, regulatory requirements, and changes in the scope of your proposed
project. Due to the foregoing, this ROM is provided to you for general informa9onal purposes only, and
should not be relied upon for budge9ng or project planning purposes.
Please let me know if you have further ques9ons and please no9fy me, should you choose to pursue this UG
Conversion or not.
Sincerely,
George Perez
Senior Project Manager – Project Management
Construction & Technical Support
Transmission Department
Southern California Edison
805-559-9913
489
Page 2 of 2
Freddy,
The client has not formally submiced to SCE to UG the powerlines as they are
reques9ng a hardship exemp9on to Condi9on 33 due to the feasibility (SCE may
not accept the project), dura9on (2-3 addi9onal years of SCE engineering and field
construc9on) and significant costs (2-3 million added cost to the applicant) that
result from COA #33.
As the city should be aware of, SCE will not put costs or dura9ons in wri9ng due to
each project being highly custom. If the power company provides a conceptual
cost es9mate and 1-2 years into engineering the project costs are significant higher
due to what was uncovered during design, there is significant liability for the
power companies from the applicant. Due to applicants feeling mislead by the
power companies with the ini9al es9mate vs the final costs. If the applicants had
known the costs would be exponen9ally higher than the ini9al es9mate, they
would not have pursued the project. As such, cost es9mates will not be provided in
wri9ng from SCE to avoid future poten9al li9ga9on on the project.
This project specifically would impact 3 SCE substa9ons along with all of the field
work along the project frontage. Un9l SCE goes into full engineering, the extent of
the upgrades to each substa9on triggered by the UG work will not be known. It
would take approximately 1.5-2 years into the 3-year total SCE UG process to
complete all of the studies and engineering and to come to a final cost for the
project. The developer would not only lose 1.5-2 years on the project, but they
would be several hundred thousand more non-refundable dollars to get to that
point of the SCE design process.
If the City is not accep9ng the hardship of 2-3M in added project costs and 2-3
addi9onal years of city required project delays, the client will need to review
internally and likely engage a Land Use Acorney to determine their next steps.
490
1
Brady, Andrew
From:George Perez <George.Perez@sce.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 16, 2021 11:07 PM
To:Brady, Andrew; Robert Castillo
Cc:Neuman, Jerry
Subject:RE: (External):635 W. Los Angeles Ave - Moorpark - Summary of Today's Meeting
[EXTERNAL]
This reflects our conversation. All information that has been provided is based on generalities. Scope, schedule and
high level Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates are not engineered or designed.
Thanks.
George Perez
Senior Project Manager – Project Management
Construction & Technical Support
Transmission Department
Southern California Edison
805-559-9913
From: Brady, Andrew <andrew.brady@dlapiper.com>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 12:41 PM
To: George Perez <George.Perez@sce.com>; Robert Castillo <Robert.R.Castillo@sce.com>
Cc: Neuman, Jerry <jerry.neuman@dlapiper.com>
Subject: (External):635 W. Los Angeles Ave - Moorpark - Summary of Today's Meeting
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL - Use caution when opening links or attachments ***
George and Robert,
Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me earlier today. I am writing this email to memorialize our
discussion about the scope of work anticipated for undergrounding the 66 kV high voltage lines on Los Angeles Avenue
adjacent to the 635 W. Los Angeles Avenue project in Moorpark. If accurate, I request that you please respond and
confirm that my email reflects what you told me. I got anything wrong in this email, please do let me know.
1. How many poles are impacted and what would be installed?
a. Four existing poles would come out – including the 3 poles that front onto the site and one additional
pole immediately to the east of the site in front of Mission Bell Plaza, covering an approximately a 600
foot span (there is approximately a 200 foot span between poles).
b. Edison would install two engineered tubular steel poles (TSP) at both ends of the approximately 600
foot span. Underneath these TSPs Edison would also have to construct two new, fairly large vaults for
housing electrical equipment. Underground trenching in the public right of way would also need to
occur to lay underground duct bank to house the underground electrical lines running for the 600 foot
span.
2. What options are there in terms of design of undergrounding, i.e., could one fewer pole come down?
a. Removing fewer poles – for instance only undergrounding a portion of the line – would not substantially
reduce the costs and timing of the undergrounding work proposed. The primary drivers of the cost here
relate to the installation of the TSPs, construction of the underground vaults, and studying and
491
2
redesigning the existing system to accommodate these changes. In any event, whatever the ultimate
span of undergrounded line, the job would still require two TSP poles at the ends with large
underground vaults and the same study and design work. Reducing the length of the undergrounding
would also not make any difference in the amount of time it would take to complete the work, which is
described below, because the same process would apply whether the span of undergrounded line was
600 feet or some lesser amount. Thus, while some cost reductions could be achieved by reducing the
number of poles removed and the length of trenching and duct bank installation, the primary drivers of
cost would still be in place.
3. What the proposed timeline and process for all required deliverables? Following the payment of an initial
deposit and a request to begin work, the process and anticipated timing are as follows:
a. Circuit Breaker Analysis: One of SCE’s initial steps following the start of work would be to conduct a
study of the circuit breakers on the high transmission line. These lines have approximately 4 large
capacity circuit breakers that are engineered for aboveground lines that may be impacted by the
proposed undergrounding. Undergrounding lines changes the dynamics of the system in a manner that
may require replacement or upgrades to these existing breakers. The prior $2.3 million dollar order of
magnitude cost estimate did include the study work to analyze the circuit breakers, but not the cost of
replacing or upgrading the breakers, which may be necessary.
b. Existing Utility and Improvement Analysis: Edison would need the cooperation of the City and Caltrans
for street improvement plans and basemaps to understand where existing improvements and utilities
are (the two large vaults that would be placed under the TSPs and the duct bank would be installed in
existing right of way, so before doing this work SCE would obviously need to understand the precise
locations of existing utilities and improvements in these locations. Conducting this work and the circuit
breaker analysis can take 3-4 months, assuming Edison can timely receive street improvement plans
and basemaps from the City and Caltrans.
c. Preliminary Design. Once Edison has analyzed the circuit breakers and the existing improvements and
utilities, it can do a preliminary design of the revisions to the system identified above. This can take an
estimated additional 3-4 months.
d. Caltrans and Moorpark Review and Approval of Preliminary Design. Once preliminary design is
complete, the design would be submitted for comment and approval by Caltrans and the City of
Moorpark.
e. Final Design. Once the City and Caltrans approve preliminary design, SCE can begin work on the final
design. Final design would take another 3-4 months.
f. Ordering TSPs. Once the design is finalized, SCE requires the developer to pay a significant deposit for
the manufacturing of the TSPs. When the deposit is paid, SCE will put in the order with its TSP
manufacturer. The manufacturing process takes approximately 1 year.
g. Construction. Following all of the previous steps, engineering and construction of the improvements
can comments. We anticipate 3-4 months of construction.
h. Overall timeline: Roughly 2.5 years, which could be longer if either the City of Caltrans provision of
information and review of plans is delayed or any unforeseen difficulties are encountered. This would
be same process that would take place if there were a shorter span undergrounded.
Thanks so much for taking the time and explaining all this to me.
Andrew Brady
T +1 213 694 3108
F +1 310 595 3406
M +1 213 447 6771
andrew.brady@us.dlapiper.com
DLA Piper LLP (US)
550 South Hope Street
Suite 2400
Los Angeles,CA 90071-2678
dlapiper.com
492
1
Brady, Andrew
From:Robert Castillo <Robert.R.Castillo@sce.com>
Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 3:11 PM
To:Brady, Andrew; George Perez
Cc:Neuman, Jerry; Manny Kozar; Matilda Dahan; Tyler A Braza
Subject:RE: (External):RE: (External):635 W, Los Angeles Ave - Moorpark
[EXTERNAL]
Andrew,
This 66kv line goes from substation to substation and does not serve the property in question. Since your project is not
going forward at this time we will cancel the engineering advance invoice and project. Please notify us again in the
future if your project goes forward.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns before we cancel this project.
Thank you,
Robert Castillo
Project Manager
ULM Supporting SCE Transmission
Construction & Technical Support
Cell 909-320-1897
From: Brady, Andrew <andrew.brady@dlapiper.com>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:30 PM
To: George Perez <George.Perez@sce.com>; Robert Castillo <Robert.R.Castillo@sce.com>
Cc: Neuman, Jerry <jerry.neuman@dlapiper.com>
Subject: RE: (External):RE: (External):635 W, Los Angeles Ave - Moorpark
George and Robert,
Following up from the call last week, I wanted to confirm that we are working with the City of Moorpark to determine if
undergrounding the 66 kv lines running along Los Angeles Avenue is actually necessary. So, for the time being, the
project will not move forward with the design work on that task. We will follow up when we get a final answer from the
City one way or another.
One more question I have is whether and, if so, how the 66 kv transmission line might indirectly serve the project. Is
there a way SCE can figure out how this Property might be indirectly served with electricity that runs on the 66 kv
transmission line?
If that question requires staff research we can pay for we would be interested in learning more about that.
Your help is greatly appreciated.
Andrew Brady
T +1 213 694 3108
F +1 310 595 3406
M +1 213 447 6771
493
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 1
TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RPD) NO.
2014-02 TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF A
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 635 LOS ANGELES AVENUE TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 69 TO 63 WITH RELATED SITE
CHANGES AND MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL
REQUIRING ALL UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND,
AND MAKING A DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) THAT A
PREVIOUSLY-ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT, ON THE APPLICATION OF
MENASHE KOZAR FOR SUMMER LAND PARTNERS GROUP,
INC. (ON BEHALF OF SKY LINE 66, LLC)
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2020-3887 for a Negative Declaration (ND)
and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 for a change of land use
designation from General Commercial to Very High Residential Density, and Resolution
No. 2020-3888 approving Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No. 2014-02
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5869 for the construction of a 69-unit multi-family
residential condominium project with a recreation center and associated site
improvements on a 4.01-acre lot located at 635 Los Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2020, an application was filed to modify a
previously-approved residential project at 635 Los Angeles Avenue to reduce the number
of units from 69 to 63 with related site changes, modify a condition of approval requiring
all utilities to be placed underground, and modify the terms of a development agreement
between the City of Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2021-660, recommending to the City Council to approve Modification No. 1 to RPD No.
2014-02, including the agenda report 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
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 1, 2021, the City
Council considered an agenda report for Modification No. 1 to RPD No. 2014-02 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
ATTACHMENT 9
494
Resolution No. 2021-____
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the
request, as amended by Modification No. 1 to RPD No. 2014-02 to reduce the intensity
of the proposed development from 69 units to 63 units is consistent with the ND adopted
for the original project, including RPD Permit No. 2014-02. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council concurs
with the Community Development Director that Modification No. 1 to RPD No. 2014-02 is
consistent with the ND adopted for RPD No. 2014-02.
SECTION 2. 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, in that
the Project would provide condominiums as well as deed-restricted affordable
housing in a design that is 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 will be located within a residential
neighborhood, designed in a manner that is complementary to development
in the vicinity and incorporates landscaped screening along the perimeter of
the property.
SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: The City Council hereby approves
Modification No. 1 to RPD No. 2014-02, subject to Special Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit A.
495
Resolution No. 2021-____
Page 3
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATE 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 1st day of September, 2021.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Special Conditions of Approval for Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2014-02
496
Resolution No. 2021-____
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2014-02
1. Standard Condition of Approval No. 145 shall not be applicable to the approved
residential project. Except as modified herein, all other conditions of approval of
Resolution No. 2020-3888 shall remain in full force and effect.
497
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FIRST
AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND SKY LINE 66, LLC,
IN ASSOCIATION WITH RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2014-02, A PREVIOUSLY-
APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED 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 February 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-
3887, 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 Density Residential (VH).
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481, for a
change of zoning from Commercial Office to Residential Planned Development and
Ordinance No. 482, approving Development Agreement by and between the City of
Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC, in association with Residential Planned Development
Permit (RPD) No. 2014-02; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2020, an application was filed to modify the terms
of a Development Agreement between the City of Moorpark and Sky Line 66, LLC, for
RPD No. 2014-02, a previously-approved residential development located at 635 Los
Angeles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 27, 2021, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2021-660, recommending that the City Council
approve a First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 1, 2021, the City
Council considered the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and public
testimony related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all points of public testimony relevant
to the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and has given careful
consideration to the content of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and
has reached a decision on the matter; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
project, as amended, is consistent with the environmental determination that was
ATTACHMENT 10
498
Ordinance No. _____
Page 2
previously-approved for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2014-02.
Therefore, no further environmental documentation is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council concurs
with the Community Development Director that the First Amendment to the Development
Agreement is consistent with the Negative Declaration adopted for Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 2014-02.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Moorpark does hereby find as follows:
A. The provisions of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement are
consistent with the General Plan in that it will help achieve the goals of the Land
Use Element and Housing Element and is consistent with the goals and policies
of all other elements.
B. The provisions of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and the
assurances that said agreement places upon the project are consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code because the
Development Agreement and First Amendment contain the elements required
by Section 15.40.030 and shall be processed through a duly-noticed public
hearing process as required by law.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the First Amendment to 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 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.
499
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 ___ of September, 2021.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
Exhibit A – First Amendment to Development Agreement with Exhibits
500
Ordinance No. _____
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Recording Requested By
And When Recorded Return to:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER’S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
§ 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF MOORPARK
AND
SKY LINE 66, LLC
501
Ordinance No. _____
Page 5
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK
AND SKY LINE 66, LLC
This First Amendment to the Development Agreement ("First Amendment”) is
made and entered into on ____________, 2021, and is an amendment to that certain
Development Agreement (“Agreement”) that was made and entered into on March 4,
2020, and recorded on March 18, 2020 by Instrument No. 20200318-00040037-0 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 (“Developer”). City
and Developer are referred to hereinafter individually as "Party” and collectively as
"Parties." In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this First
Amendment to the Agreement, City and Developer agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This First Amendment 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:
a. 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.
b. Developer is the owner of real property within the City, more
specifically described in Exhibit “A” attached to the original
Development Agreement (referred to hereinafter as the “Property”).
c. Prior to, and in connection with approval of the Agreement, the City
Council reviewed the project to be developed pursuant to the
Agreement as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”). The City Council found that the Negative Declaration
(“ND”) adopted by Resolution No 2020-3887 to be applicable to the
Agreement and that no changes or new information within the scope
of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 required the preparation of
a new or subsequent environmental document in connection with the
approval of the Agreement.
d. Prior to approval of the Agreement, the City had approved General
Plan Amendment No. 2014-01 (“GPA 2014-01”), Zone Change No.
2014-01 (“ZC 2014-01”), and Residential Planned Development
Permit No. 2014-02 (“RPD 2014-02”), including all subsequently
approved modifications and permit adjustments to RPD 2014-02 and
all amendments thereto (collectively “the Project Approvals”;
individually “a Project Approval”) to provide for the development of the
Property with a 69-unit multi-family residential condominium complex
502
Ordinance No. _____
Page 6
and the construction of certain off-site improvements in connection
therewith (“the Project”).
e. Thereafter, the City Council approved the Agreement with respect to
the Property on March 4, 2020, and the Agreement was executed and
then recorded on March 18, 2020 by Instrument No. 20200318-
00040037-0.
f. Following approval of the Project on March 4, 2020, Developer
amended the number of buildable units onsite to comply with the
California Building Code’s minimum requirements for garage
dimensions of 20’ x 20’. As approved by the City Council, the Project
included garages that did not comply with the minimum requirements
of the California Building Code. Further, additional site area was
needed for drainage purposes than was reflected in the approved
site plan. Pursuant to the conditions of approval imposed on the
Project and agreed to under the Agreement, Developer is required
to comply with all Building Codes in place at the time of Project
approval. In order to comply with the Building Codes’ garage
dimensions and drainage requirements, the total number of
approved units has been reduced from 69 to 63.
g. In consideration of the decrease in the number of approved units to
be included in the Project, the City has agreed to proportionally
reduce the number of affordable units required to reflect the same
affordable set aside of fifteen percent (15%) of total units as
originally agreed to in the Agreement.
h. Developer has sought relief from Standard Condition of Approval No.
145 which requires the Owner to underground all existing and
proposed utilities based on plans approved by the City, including
electrical transmission lines less than 67Kv prior to issuance of the
Project’s first building permit. Relief is sought due to the complex
work required to underground the specific high voltage transmission
lines which carry electricity from the Moorpark substation owned by
Southern California Edison and which are uniquely different than
other overhead utilities, including other overhead utilities along Los
Angeles Avenue. Undergrounding the transmission lines fronting
the Project site on Los Angeles Avenue would cause a potential
delay to the Project of approximately two and a half years. This is
because undergrounding these transmission lines would require
additional poles to be removed in front of other property and
engineered steel poles to be constructed on either end of the
undergrounding, along with vaults installed at both ends. At this
time, the adjacent properties have not undergrounded the high
voltage transmission lines fronting their properties.
503
Ordinance No. _____
Page 7
i. The City has agreed to waive Standard Condition of Approval No.
145 solely as applied to the high-voltage transmission lines front Los
Angeles Avenue due to the unique circumstances of the Project and
those transmission lines. In consideration for waiving the high
voltage transmission line undergrounding requirement associated
with Standard Condition of Approval No. 145, Applicant has agreed
to pay the City a fee in lieu of the undergrounding equal to $210,000
to be applied toward future project costs for undergrounding
overhead utilities. The City will modify other mitigation fees required
by the Agreement in order to render the in-lieu fee cost neutral for
the Applicant.
j. In order for Developer to construct the Project, as well as to provide
the housing opportunities for residents and to assist in advancing the
City’s state-certified Housing Element, the Parties desire to amend
the Agreement to an in-lieu fee for the future undergrounding of the
66 KV power lines along the project frontage and reduce the number
of affordable units required due to a reduction in the overall units to
be constructed within the project.
k. On July 27, 2021the Planning Commission of the City commenced a
duly noticed public hearing on the environmental determination, and
this First Amendment, and at the conclusion of the hearing
recommended approval of the environmental determination and this
First Amendment.
l. On September 1, 2021, the City Council commenced a duly noticed
public hearing on the environmental determination and this First
Amendment, and at the conclusion of the hearing, made an
environmental determination and introduced Ordinance No. ___ to
approve this First Amendment. On September 15, 2021, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. ___ approving this First Amendment.
2. Amendment to Project. Pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Agreement,
Developer acknowledges and agrees that the Project has been amended
to provide for the 63 condominium units and the construction of any
improvements in connection therewith. Developer further consents to the
City’s amendment to the Project Approvals, including Residential Planned
Development (RPD) Permit No. 2014-02, as necessary to incorporate a
revised site plan that reflects a new version of the Project with 63
condominium units.
504
Ordinance No. _____
Page 8
3. Amendment of Section 6.3. Section 6.3 of the Agreement is amended as
follows:
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 Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) per residential. unit. The
Development Fee shall be adjusted annually commencing January 1,
2022, 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.
4. Amendment of Section 6.7. Section 6.7 of the Agreement is amended to
read as follows:
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 Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) for
each residential dwelling unit within the Property. If the Park Fee is not
paid by January 1, 2022, the Park Fee shall be adjusted annually
commencing January 1, 2022 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-
505
Ordinance No. _____
Page 9
described payments shall be deemed to satisfy the parkland
dedication requirement set forth in California Government Code
Section 66477 et seq. for the Property.
5. Amendment of Section 6.4. Section 6.4 of the Agreement is amended to
read as follows:
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 Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars
($11,867.00) per residential unit. The Citywide Traffic Fee shall be
adjusted annually commencing January 1, 2022, 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 8 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. Addition of Section 6.21. A new Section 6.21 of the Agreement is added
to read as follows:
Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee. 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
"Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee"). The Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee may be
expended the undergrounding of any overhead power lines within the City,
with those locations chosen by the City Council in its sole and absolute
discretion. The amount of the Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall be Three
Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-three Dollars ($3,333.00) per
residential. unit. The Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall be adjusted
annually commencing January 1, 2022, 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. The
Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee shall satisfy Developer’s requirement to
underground the 67Kv high-voltage transmission lines fronting Los
Angeles Avenue pursuant to Standard Condition of Approval No. 145.
Developer is responsible for all other undergrounding requirements under
506
Ordinance No. _____
Page 10
that condition.
7. Amendment of Section 6.13(a). Section 6.13(a) of the Agreement is
amended to read as follows:
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 greater
than would otherwise be available, to provide ten (10) 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 ten (10) housings units may be
referred to as affordable units or units affordable to low income households
or required affordable units.
8. Amendment of Subsection 6.13(w). Subsection 6.13(w) of the Agreement
is amended to read as follows:
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 and shown on Exhibit
“C” attached hereto and superseding Exhibit “C” to the Development
Agreement recorded on March 18, 2020, by Instrument No. 20200318-
00040037-0:
Prior to
Occupancy of
Number of
Affordable Units
20th Unit 3
40th Unit 3
60th Unit 3 2
69th 63rd Unit 2
Total 11 10
9. Amendment of Subsection 6.13(y). Subsection 6.13(y) of the Agreement
is amended to read as follows:
Developer shall provide the initial buyer of each Completed Unit in the
Project a disclosure that the Project includes ten (10) residential dwelling
units that will be sold to qualified low-income households. The disclosures
shall also state that these ten (10) residential dwelling units have deed
restrictions recorded on their title that restrict the resale of these units only
507
Ordinance No. _____
Page 11
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.
10. Operative Date of First Amendment. This First Amendment shall become
operative on the date that Ordinance No. ___ that approves this First
Agreement becomes effective pursuant to Government Code Section
36937.
11. Authority. By their signatures below, the individuals signing on behalf of
Developer and City warrant that they have the authority to execute this
First Amendment on behalf of Developer and City, respectively.
12. Entire Agreement. The Development Agreement and this First
Amendment, contain the entire agreement between the Parties regarding
the subject matter hereof, and all prior agreements, understandings, oral or
written, are hereby merged herein, except that nothing contained herein is
intended to or shall abrogate, extinguish or supersede the Affordable
Housing Agreement and any other City land use entitlements or conditions
imposed thereby that are applicable to the development of the Property.
13. Except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Moorpark and the Developer have executed
this First Amendment to the Development Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK
Janice S. Parvin
Mayor
OWNER/DEVELOPER
Sky Line 66, LLC
By: ________________________________
Its:
By: ________________________________
Its:
508
Ordinance No. _____
Page 12
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of Ventura )
On _________________________, before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
509
Ordinance No. _____
Page 13
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of Ventura )
On _________________________, before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
510
Ordinance No. ___
Page 14
511