HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2025 0702 CC REG ITEM 09CCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of July 2, 2025
ACTION APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION.
BY A. Hurtado.
C. Consider Award of Professional Services Agreement to PlaceWorks, Inc. for
Preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan Update and Associated Environmental
Review for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $266,690. Staff Recommendation: Award
Professional Services Agreement to PlaceWorks, Inc. for the preparation of a
Downtown Specific Plan update and associated environmental review and
authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement, subject to final language
approval by the City Manager. (Staff: Doug Spondello, Community
Development Director)
Item: 9.C.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Doug Spondello, Community Development Director
DATE: 07/02/2025 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Award of Professional Services Agreement to
PlaceWorks, Inc. for Preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan Update
and Associated Environmental Review for a Not-to-Exceed Amount
of $266,690
BACKGROUND
The current Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) was originally adopted in 1998 and has
been amended six times. The City has since adopted a comprehensive 2050 General
Plan and updated Zoning Ordinance. Recent development on High Street has also
revealed that the community’s current vision for Downtown may not be adequately
reflected in the 1998 DTSP. The DTSP also lacks tools needed to support infill housing,
economic vitality, and pedestrian-oriented development.
To address these issues, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on April 21,
2025, to seek a qualified consulting team to prepare the update to the DTSP and
associated environmental review. A key goal of this effort is identifying and
implementing the community’s vision for Downtown, as described in the General Plan
and aligning with the objectives of the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0
Program, administered by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
The update of the Downtown Specific Plan will result in a clear, visual, and easy to
apply form-based design code that focuses on how buildings will feature high-quality
architectural designs. Planning will also include outdoor dining programs, the desired
character for public streets, visioning of key properties such as the Chamber of
Commerce building, and other identified priorities for public input.
On February 19, 2025, the City Council authorized a Memorandum of Understanding
with SCAG to receive a REAP 2.0 grant of $250,000 to reimburse the City for costs
associated with the DTSP update.
Item: 9.C.
25
Honorable City Council
07/02/2025, Regular Meeting
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Staff has evaluated a total of 10 responses to the RFP and conducted interviews of the
top three firms. After evaluating the merits of each, staff is recommending the selection
of PlaceWorks, Inc. (PlaceWorks) to prepare the DTSP update and associated
environmental review.
PlaceWorks has previously assisted the City with the comprehensive update of the
General Plan and Zoning Code. As a result, they possess a unique understanding of
Moorpark’s community and goals for Downtown. The team also includes experts in
form-based code, economic development, and architecture. Finally, PlaceWorks also
provides services on other REAP 2.0 grants and have demonstrated an ability to meet
the deliverables, deadline, and reporting requirements associated with the funding. The
Draft Professional Services Agreement is included as Attachment to this report.
The Agreement also incorporates by reference SCAG-City of Moorpark MOU No.
M-026-25 to ensure compliance with REAP 2.0 program requirements. This includes
provisions related to SCAG ownership of work products, crediting SCAG in all public
communications, and various flowdown provisions governing funding, auditing, and
reporting.
Following the approval of the Agreement, staff will immediately engage with PlaceWorks
and begin the initial coordination in support of this Project. The first public-facing task
will be a visioning meeting anticipated to be held in August. From that point,
Placeworks will develop a draft plan, provide an opportunity for public input on that draft,
and then make refinements to present to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The work plan included in the attached Agreement also anticipates a joint meeting
between the Planning Commission and City Council to receive input on the key
elements of the new plan and also capture additional community input before public
hearings to consider adoption. The current schedule has identified project completion
by June, 2026 – which is consistent with the REAP 2.0 funding deadline. Staff will work
diligently to ensure that the community is engaged through this effort, despite the
ambitious timeline, employing outreach strategies similar to those that guided the
development of General Plan 2050.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does
not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
26
Honorable City Council
07/02/2025, Regular Meeting
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
The not-to-exceed amount of the contract with PlaceWorks is $266,690 and there is
sufficient funding available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/27 Budget. The REAP 2.0
grant will provide for the reimbursement of $250,000 to the City associated with this
project.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action will ensure implementation of City Council Goal 2, Objective 2.10: “Update
Downtown Specific Plan.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Award Professional Services Agreement to PlaceWorks, Inc. for the preparation of a
Downtown Specific Plan update and associated environmental review and authorize the
City Manager to execute the Agreement, subject to final language approval by the City
Manager.
Attachment: Draft Professional Services Agreement with PlaceWorks, Inc.
27
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK
AND
PLACEWORKS, INC., FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONEMTNAL REVIEW
THIS AGREEMENT, executed as of _________________________, is between
the City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation (“City”) and PlaceWorks, Inc., a California
Corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City has the need for development of a Downtown Specific Plan and
associated environmental review services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant specializes in providing such services and has the proper
work experience, certifications, and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to City a Proposal dated May 21, 2025,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits, and
premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution to completion of
the work identified in the Scope of Services and in conformance with Exhibit C, unless
this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Agreement.
2.SCOPE OF SERVICES
City does hereby retain Consultant, as an independent contractor, in a contractual
capacity to provide the necessary services, as set forth in Exhibit C. In the event there is
a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit C and this Agreement, the language contained
in this Agreement shall take precedence.
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit C. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth
in Exhibit C.
Compensation for the services to be performed by Consultant shall be in
accordance with Exhibit C. Compensation shall not exceed the rates or total contract
value two hundred sixty-six thousand six hundred ninety dollars ($266,690) as stated in
Exhibit C, without a written Amendment to the Agreement executed by both parties.
Payment by City to Consultant shall be in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement.
ATTACHMENT
28
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 2 of 17
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability,
experience, standard of care, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. MANAGEMENT
The individual directly responsible for Consultant’s overall performance of the
Agreement provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between
City and Consultant shall be Jonathan Nettler, and no other individual may be substituted
without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
The City’s contact person in charge of administration of this Agreement, and to
serve as principal liaison between Consultant and City, shall be the City Manager or the
City Manager’s designee.
5. PAYMENT
Taxpayer ID or Social Security numbers must be provided by Consultant on an
IRS W-9 form before payments may be made by City to Consultant.
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates
and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit C, based upon actual time
spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed two hundred sixty-six thousand
six hundred ninety dollars ($266,690) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional
payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with
its performance of this Agreement, which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless
such additional services and compensation are authorized, in advance, in a written
amendment to this Agreement executed by both parties. The City Manager, if authorized
by City Council, may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
amount of the Agreement.
Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter
as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within
thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. Any expense or
reimbursable cost appearing on any invoice shall be accompanied by a receipt or other
documentation subject to approval of the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.
If the City disputes any of Consultant’s fees or expenses, City shall give written notice to
Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
29
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 3 of 17
6. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend, or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
The Consultant may terminate this Agreement only by providing City with written
notice no less than thirty (30) days in advance of such termination.
In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Section,
the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination or suspension, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon
termination or suspension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will
submit an invoice to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant
for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate or suspend this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall
not be considered a default.
If the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the Consultant is in default
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause
to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall
have thirty (30) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by
rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its
default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under
this Agreement.
8. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
There are no liquidated damages under this Agreement.
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales,
costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate
30
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 4 of 17
records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All
such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to the representatives of City or the City’s designees at reasonable times to
such books and records; shall give the City the right to examine and audit said books and
records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this
Agreement. Notification of audit shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any such
audit is conducted. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension without cause of
this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files,
surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to
be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and
may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the
Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City,
at the Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and
printing computer files.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, all work products
prepared under this Agreement shall be the sole property of the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), as provided in Section 10 of Memorandum of
Understanding NO. M-026-25 between the City of Moorpark and SCAG. Furthermore, all
public-facing communication materials produced under this Agreement shall
acknowledge and give credit to SCAG through appropriate logo usage or attribution
language consistent with SCAG Brand Guidelines. The Consultant should coordinate
with the City to ensure that local elected officials within the project area are invited to all
outreach activities to promote awareness and community support.
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Indemnity for professional liability: When the law establishes a professional
standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its
officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all
losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs
to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error
or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees and/or subconsultants (or any
agency or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the
performance of professional services under this Agreement.
Indemnity for other than professional liability: Other than in the performance of
professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify,
protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its officials, employees, and
agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration
proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or
31
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 5 of 17
costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including legal counsels’ fees
and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same
arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part,
the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or agency for which
Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or
subconsultants of Consultant.
Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth here in this Section from each and every subconsultant, or any
other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from
others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms
of this Section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no
additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.
This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors,
assigns, or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this
Section.
City does not and shall not waive any rights that it may have against Consultant by
reason of this Section, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any
insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The hold harmless
and indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether or not said insurance
policies are determined to be applicable to any losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and
expenses described in this Section.
11. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
12. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct
of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any
of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers or employees, volunteers
or agents of the City except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not incur or
have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability against City, or bind City in any
manner.
32
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 6 of 17
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of local, state, and federal laws and
regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the
performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times
observe and comply with all such laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws
and regulations. The Consultant shall comply with and sign Exhibit B, the Scope of Work
Requirement for Professional Services Agreements Compliance with California
Government Code Section 7550, when applicable. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant
to comply with this Section.
Should the Scope of Services include work that is considered a public work to
which prevailing wages apply, the public work project is subject to compliance monitoring
and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Consultant
agrees to comply with and be bound by all applicable terms, rules and regulations
described in (a) Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation Labor Code Section 1771 and (b) the
rules and regulations established by the DIR implementing such statutes, as though set
forth in full herein, including any applicable amendments made thereto during the term of
this Agreement. For every subcontractor who will perform work on this project, Consultant
shall be responsible for subcontractor’s compliance with (a) and (b), and Consultant shall
take all necessary actions to ensure subcontractor’s compliance. Labor Code Section
1725.5 requires all contractors and subcontractors to annually register with the DIR before
bidding or performing on any public work contract.
14. ANTI DISCRIMINATION
Neither the Consultant, nor any subconsultant and/or subcontractor under the
Consultant, shall discriminate in employment of persons upon the work because of race,
religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity,
gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; or any other
basis protected by applicable federal, state, or local law, except as provided in Section
12940 of the Government Code. Consultant shall have responsibility for compliance with
this Section.
33
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 7 of 17
15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used
against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award,
terms, or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion,
confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the
City will receive compensation, directly or indirectly from Consultant, or any officer,
employee, or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any
work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a
material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in
equity.
16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of the City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services
during his/her tenure or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be
performed in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Consultant covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have
any interests, nor shall they acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant
further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, they shall employ no person
having such interest as an officer, employee, agent, subconsultant, or subcontractor.
Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing
any services directly or indirectly, with the developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or
firm(s) and/or partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies) owning property and/or processing
an entitlement application for property in the City or its Area of Interest, now or within the
past one (1) year, and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its
subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any contract with any developer(s)
and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) and/or public agency(ies)
owning property and/or processing an entitlement application for property in the City or
its Area of Interest, while under contract with the City and for a one (1) year time period
following termination of this Agreement.
18. NOTICE
Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and all such
notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service or
by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with
postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows:
34
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 8 of 17
To: City Manager
City of Moorpark
323 Science Drive
Moorpark, CA 93021
To: Placeworks
Alan Loomis AICP
700 S. Flower Street Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a
different address or contact person, which shall be substituted for the one above
specified. Notices, payments and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon
receipt by personal service or as of the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United States
mail.
19. CHANGE IN NAME
Should a change be contemplated in the name or nature of the Consultant's legal
entity, the Consultant shall first notify the City in order that proper steps may be taken to
have the change reflected in the Agreement documents.
20. ASSIGNMENT
Consultant shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights, duties, or
obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant
is uniquely qualified to perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
21. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force
and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services in this
Agreement.
22. VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in Ventura County, California,
and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation, enforcement or
other action of the terms, conditions, or covenants referred to herein shall be filed in the
applicable court in Ventura County, California. The City and Consultant understand and
agree that the laws of the state of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties,
and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this
Agreement.
35
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 9 of 17
23. COST RECOVERY
In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the
declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any
alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, from the losing party, and any
judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement.
All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and
statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further
force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the
representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of
any and all facts such party deems material.
25. CAPTIONS OR HEADINGS
The captions and headings of the various Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits of this
Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit
or define the content of the respective Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits hereof.
26. AMENDMENTS
Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by both parties to this Agreement.
27. PRECEDENCE
In the event of conflict, the requirements of the City’s Request for Proposal, if any,
and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant’s
Proposal.
28. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
Should interpretation of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it is
deemed that this Agreement was prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall
not be interpreted against either party on the ground that the party prepared the
Agreement or caused it to be prepared.
29. WAIVER
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or 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 executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
36
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 10 of 17
30. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The City of Moorpark and Southern California Association of Governments
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M-026-25 is hereby incorporated by
reference into this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and
MOU No. M-026-25, the terms of MOU No. M-026-25 shall prevail.
31. ADDITIONAL FLOWDOWN REQUIREMENTS
The Consultant agrees to comply with the following provisions contained in
Memorandum of Understanding No. M-026-25 between the City of Moorpark and
Southern California Association of Governments, which are incorporated herein by
reference:
a. Section 3.c. (Scope of Work and Sub-Recipient’s Responsibilities – nexus
to REAP 2.0)
b. Section 3.e. – 3.g. (Scope of Work and Sub-Recipient’s Responsibilities –
procurements)
c. Section 3.k. (Scope of Work and Sub-Recipient’s Responsibilities – penalty
of perjury)
d. Section 5.e. (Funding – repayment of ineligible costs)
e. Section 6 (Invoices)
f. Section 7 (Reporting)
g. Section 8 (Accounting)
h. Section 9 (Allowable Uses of Grant Funds)
i. Section 10 (Work Products)
j. Section 13 (Insurance)
k. Section 14 (Indemnification)
l. Section 18 (Records Retention)
m. Section 19 (Monitoring and Audits)
n. Section 20 (Small Business and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise
Participation)
o. Section 21 (Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations)
p. Section 22 (Public Works and Construction)
q. Section 23 (Conflict of Interest)
r. Section 24 (Independent Contractor)
s. Section 25 (Assignment)
t. Section 26 (Release of Information)
32. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of
obligations hereunder.
37
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 11 of 17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK PLACEWORKS, INC.
__________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Gagajena, City Manager Alan Loomis AICP, Principal
Attest:
__________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
38
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 12 of 17
Exhibit A
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement, or endorse
the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage
and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage
required. Any insurance proceeds available to the City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to the City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Type of Insurance Limits
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 / $2,000,000 Aggregate
Business Automobile Liability $1,000,000
Workers’ Compensation Statutory Requirements
Professional Liability $1,000,000
Insurance Rating. Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by
insurers that are authorized carriers in the State of California and with an A.M. Best rating
of A- or better and a minimum financial size category class VII.
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office (ISO)
“Commercial General Liability” policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense
costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims
or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence for all covered losses and no less than $2,000,000
general aggregate.
Business Automobile Insurance coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA
00 01 10 13 including symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to
review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident. If
Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto
endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant’s
employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide
evidence of personal auto liability for each such person.
Workers’ Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease. Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a
39
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 13 of 17
Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents,
employees, and volunteers.
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance as appropriate shall be
written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant and “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must “pay on
behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer’s duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
Agreement.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
coverages. Coverage shall be provided on a “pay on behalf” basis, with defense costs
payable in addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at
the time insured’s liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first.
There shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to the City for injury to employees
of Consultant, subconsultants, or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage
provided is subject to approval by the City following receipt of proof of insurance as
required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $2,000,000
aggregate.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and the City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds the City, its officials,
employees, and volunteers, using standard ISO endorsement CG 2010 and CG
2037, or equivalent, with edition acceptable to the City. Consultant also agrees to
require all subconsultants and/or subcontractors to do likewise.
2. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall
be endorsed to waive subrogation against the City, its elected or appointed
officers, agents, officials, employees, and volunteers or shall specifically allow
subconsultants and/or Contractors or others providing insurance evidence in
compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss.
Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery against the City and shall
require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its
subconsultants and/or subcontractors. Consultant shall submit to City, along with
the certificate of insurance, a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of
City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or
applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies.
40
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 14 of 17
Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or
its operation limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to the City and approved in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any subconsultant and/or
subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g., elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect the City’s protection without the
City’s prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to city at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled or reduced
at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, the City has the right, but
not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests
under this or any other Agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid
by the City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from
sums due Consultant, at the City’s option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide thirty (30) days notice to the
City of any cancellation or reduction of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its
insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that
failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation or reduction of coverage
imposes no obligation, or that any party will “endeavor” (as opposed to being
required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate.
9. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and non-contributory and
any insurance of self-insurance procured or maintained by the City shall not be
required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be
satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any
umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision
that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for
the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called
upon to protect it as a named insured. Consultant shall submit to City, along with
the certificate of insurance, a primary and non-contributory endorsement in
favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
41
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 15 of 17
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subconsultants and/or subcontractors, and any
other party involved with the Work who is brought onto or involved in the Work by
Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance required of Consultant.
Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all
responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the
requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements
with subconsultants and/or subcontractors and others engaged in the Work will be
submitted to the City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any subconsultant, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer, or other
entity or person in any way involved in the performance of Work contemplated by
this Agreement to self-insure its obligations to the City. If Consultant’s existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time, the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to change
the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant thirty (30)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to the City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with an insurance requirement
in no way imposes any additional obligations to the City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as the City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this Agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the Agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until the
City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
42
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 16 of 17
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to the City within
five days of the expiration of coverage.
17. The provisions of any Workers’ Compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to the City,
its employees, officials and volunteers.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this section supersede all other sections and provisions of this
Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts or impairs the
provisions of this section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the Work reserves the right to charge the City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to the City. It is
not the intent of the City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with
these requirements. There shall be no recourse against the City for payment of
premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this Agreement. The City
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve the
City.
43
Rev. 03/10/2025 Page 17 of 17
Exhibit B
CITY OF MOORPARK
Scope of Work Requirement for Professional Services Agreements
Compliance with California Government Code § 7550
Consultant shall sign and include this page in any document or written reports prepared by
Consultant for the City of Moorpark (City) to which California Government Code § 7550
(Government Code § 7550) applies. Government Code §7550 reads:
“(a) Any document or written report prepared for or under the direction of a state
or local agency, that is prepared in whole or in part by nonemployees of the
agency, shall contain the numbers and dollar amounts of all contracts and
subcontracts relating to the preparation of the document or written report; if the
total cost for the work performed by nonemployees of the agency exceeds five
thousand dollars ($5,000). The contract and subcontract numbers and dollar
amounts shall be contained in a separate section of the document or written report.
(b) When multiple documents or written reports are the subject or product of the
contract, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating that the
total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written
reports.”
For all Professional Services Agreement with a total dollar value in excess of $5,000, a signed
and completed copy of this form must be attached to all documents or completed reports
submitted to the City pursuant to the Scope of Work.
Does the dollar value of this Professional Services Agreement exceed $5,000?
X Yes No
If yes, then the following information must be provided in compliance with
Government Code § 7550:
1. Dollar amount of Agreement/Contract: $ 266,690
2. Dollar amount of Subcontract: $
3. Does the total contract amount represent compensation for multiple
documents or written reports? X Yes No
I have read the foregoing Code section and will comply with Government Code §7550.
__________________________________
______________________
Signature, Title Date
44
City of Moorpark
Downtown Specific Plan Update
PROPOSAL • MAY 21, 2025
Moorpark StationMoorpark StationMoorpark Station
HIGH S
T
M
O
O
R
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
LOS A
N
G
E
L
E
S
A
V
E
SP
R
I
N
G
R
D
Walnu
t
C
a
n
y
o
n
Magne
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
Walnu
t
C
a
n
y
o
n
Magne
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
Chap
a
r
r
a
l
M
i
d
d
l
e
Scho
o
l
Chap
a
r
r
a
l
M
i
d
d
l
e
Scho
o
l
Post
O
c
e
Post
O
c
e
Moor
p
a
r
k
T
o
w
n
Cente
r
Moor
p
a
r
k
T
o
w
n
Cente
r
Poind
e
x
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
Poind
e
x
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
Flory
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
o
f
Scien
c
e
s
&
Techn
o
l
o
g
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Flory
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
o
f
Scien
c
e
s
&
Techn
o
l
o
g
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Magn
o
l
i
a
P
a
r
k
Magn
o
l
i
a
P
a
r
k
The A
l
l
e
y
The A
l
l
e
y
Police
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Police
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Castr
o
H
u
m
a
n
Servi
c
e
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
Castr
o
H
u
m
a
n
Servi
c
e
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
High
S
t
r
e
e
t
Arts C
e
n
t
e
r
High
S
t
r
e
e
t
Arts C
e
n
t
e
r
High St
r
e
e
t
D
e
p
o
t
New Civ
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Vendar
a
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
Hitch Ra
n
c
h
Everett S
t
r
e
e
t
Terraces
Mixed-U
s
e
Buildin
g
High St
r
e
e
t
D
e
p
o
t
New Civ
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Vendar
a
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
Hitch Ra
n
c
h
Everett S
t
r
e
e
t
Terraces
Mixed-U
s
e
Buildin
g
HIGH S
T
M
O
O
R
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
LOS A
N
G
E
L
E
S
A
V
E
SP
R
I
N
G
R
D
Google Earth
EXHIBIT C
45
46
PLACEWORKS.COM
SUBMITTED TO:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Doug Spondello AICP
Community Development Director
799 Moorpark Ave
Moorpark CA 93021
805.517.6251 | dspondello@moorparkca.gov
Transmitted via Email to Doug Spondello
SUBMITTED BY:
PLACEWORKS
Alan Loomis AICP
Principal, Urban Design
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles CA 90017
213.623.1443 x2101| aloomis@placeworks.com
WITH:
WILLIAM FULTON GROUP
DiCECCO ARCHITECTURE INC.
MAY 21, 2025
City of Moorpark
Downtown Specific Plan Update
47
48
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS i
CONTENTS
COVER LETTER 1
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE 2
PlaceWorks Background/Experience ....................................... 2
Project Team Organization ............................................................... 3
Key Staff Biographies ........................................................................ 3
Subconsultants Background/Experience ................................. 4
William Fulton Group Marketing/Economics ................................. 4
DiCecco Architecture Inc. Architecture .......................................... 4
Relevant Project Experience .................................................... 5
PlaceWorks ....................................................................................... 5
William Fulton Group ....................................................................... 7
DiCecco Architecture Inc. ................................................................. 7
PROPOSED APPROACH & METHODOLOGY 8
Project Understanding ............................................................. 8
Project Approach and Methodology ....................................... 9
Scope of Work ......................................................................... 10
Task 1. Project Management and Coordination ............................ 10
Task 2. Public Outreach .................................................................. 11
Task 3. Specific Plan ........................................................................ 13
Task 4. Public Hearings and Adoption ............................................ 14
PROJECT SCHEDULE 15
PLACEWORKS: PLANS THAT LEAD TO SWIFT CHANGE 16
APPENDIX A-1
References ............................................................................ A-1
Resumes ................................................................................ A-2
49
Contents
ii CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
50
Qualifications & Experience
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 1
COVER LETTER
May 21, 2025
Doug Spondello, AICP
Community Development Director
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Transmitted via Email to dspondello@moorparkca.gov
Subject: Proposal for City of Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Update Consultant Services
Dear Mr. Spondello:
On behalf of the PlaceWorks team, we are excited to submit this proposal for professional services to update Moorpark’s
Downtown Specific Plan. Decades after the focus of economic activity shifted to Los Angeles Avenue, Downtown is enjoying a
remarkable resurgence. Private investment and public infrastructure improvements are sparking new life in the City’s oldest
district. These sparks have occurred within the context of an outdated Specific Plan that is difficult to administer and
inconsistent with the City’s newly updated General Plan and Zoning Code. This project is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
provide the roadmap and framework to guide and encourage Downtown’s next act while enhancing the characteristics that
make it special.
In order to best serve the City and manage the project’s budget and schedule constraints, we have assembled a team of
experts who deeply understand from experience Moorpark’s values and its regulatory, land use, economic, and design context.
This will allow our team to hit the ground running and efficiently build off of the City’s significant investment in recent planning
work. Providing continuity with the work completed on the General Plan and Zoning Code Update, the PlaceWorks team will be
led by Principal-in-Charge Alan Loomis AICP and Project Manager Jonathan Nettler AICP. General Plan EIR lead Nicole
Vermilion will steer the project’s CEQA evaluation. William Fulton FAICP will build off of insights gained in developing the City’s
first Economic Development Strategic Plan to provide guidance on market conditions and long-term prosperity. Mark DiCecco,
AIA, provides the team with expertise in interpreting and implementing development codes and translating Downtown’s
unique qualities into enriching designs.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration. PlaceWorks acknowledges receipt and review of
Addenda No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. As a principal, Alan Loomis is authorized to bind the team to the contents of this submittal
and to negotiate contracts of any amount. This proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the date of
submittal. If you have any questions, please contact either or both of us.
Respectfully submitted,
PLACEWORKS
ALAN LOOMIS AICP | Principal, Urban Design JONATHAN NETTLER AICP | Associate Principal
213.623.1443 x2101 | aloomis@placeworks.com 213.623.1443 x2139 | jnettler@placeworks.com
51
Qualifications & Experience
2 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
PlaceWorks Background/Experience
PlaceWorks, Inc., a 100% employee-owned California
Corporation, is one of the West’s most eminent planning,
design, and environmental consulting firms serving
communities. The firm serves both public- and private-sector
clients in the fields of comprehensive planning, urban design,
landscape architecture, environmental analysis, GIS and much
more. Celebrating our 50th anniversary this year, PlaceWorks
now employs a staff of approximately 145 people in six
offices. We hold the distinction of having prepared well over
150 general plans and 500 specific plans statewide—the vast
majority of which we also provided associated California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Our broad
experience and technical proficiency provide us with a keen
understanding of the complexities of public policies, project
designs, and legal requirements. Please see our online
portfolio for: https://placeworks.com/portfolio-
category/planning/.
Our Hallmark: Plans That Lead to Swift Change.
PlaceWorks is at the forefront of the specific planning
practice and has completed many hundreds of specific plans
for small, medium, large, rural, suburban, and urban cities
and towns throughout California, including plans for new
downtowns, civic centers, mixed-use communities and
neighborhoods, transit station area plans, areas undergoing
significant transformation and reuse, and underperforming
commercial corridors. We focus on laying the groundwork
for positive change in the urban fabric and on integrating
public realm improvements that foster quality places and
encourage alternative travel modes.
Master Planning, Urban Design, and Placemaking. Since
our early days, PlaceWorks has designed both greenfield
neighborhood planning and design and urban planning in
built-out communities. Together our designers, planners,
and economist bring their expertise to craft plans that allow
for adaptive reuse, integrate transit and streetscape
networks, carefully consider building design and placement,
respect nature, provide activated/curated open spaces, and
are grounded in economic reality.
Award-Winning Community Engagement. The PlaceWorks
team is invested not only in producing plans that are
adoptable and implementable, but in developing an open,
engaging, and interactive process that incorporates true
feedback from the community. Our work is founded on the
principle that the success of a project lies with the
ownership and involvement of community members. We
integrate technical expertise with a community-based
approach, developing a thorough understanding of the
issues and challenges that are relevant to each community.
Zoning Codes and Design Guidelines. When preparing
design guidelines, PlaceWorks’ urban designers and
landscape architects focus on the necessary design
components to create or preserve good urban fabric and
encourage high-quality building design. We address the
broader issues, such as building massing, rhythm, and
setback, as well as more detailed criteria such as signage,
fenestration, and lighting, to ensure that consistent yet
flexible standards guide future development. PlaceWorks
constantly updates its in-house technical specifications and
construction details to reflect the latest codes, trends, and
sustainable practices, and is experienced with high-
efficiency irrigation design and reclaimed water systems.
Environmental Review. We have over four decades of
experience in environmental planning, with a long-term
perspective and technical expertise in shaping responses to
the dynamic state and federal regulatory environment. We
have handled a wide range of project sizes and types, and our
reputation is built on our consistent production of effective
and defensible environmental documents.
52
Qualifications & Experience
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 3
Project Team Organization
Key Staff Biographies
ALAN LOOMIS AICP | Principal, Urban Design
Principal-in-Charge
Alan is an award-winning urban designer,
planner and educator. As PlaceWorks’ Principal
of Urban Design, Alan is responsible for leading
our regional urban design practice while
playing a role in projects throughout California. An early
practitioner and proponent of Form-Based Codes, Alan is
also a 15-year veteran of city government, where he
directed a wide range of urban design-based policy projects
leading multidisciplinary teams through an equally wide
range of public outreach programs, as well as reviewed
development projects under Form-Based Codes.
Alan’s urban design
experience includes
leading visioning,
strategic, and specific
plans for Artesia
Downtown, Glendora
Station Area, Long Beach
Downtown Shoreline, Los
Alamitos Town Center, and more.
JONATHAN NETTLER AICP | Associate Principal
Project Manager
Jonathan is an accomplished leader with 20
years of experience in impacting urban policy
and practice to create more healthy, vibrant,
and sustainable places. He has a unique cross-
disciplinary skill set while working in real estate and land use
across the US and on international projects. Jonathan’s
expertise includes project
management and delivery,
policy development, public
outreach, team leadership,
partnership-building, nonprofit governance, grant writing,
and communications. As project manager, Jonathan
completed the Moorpark General Plan 2050 and the
Norwalk Downtown Civic Center-
Entertainment District Specific Plan. Other
project management experience includes
the Connect Southwest LA TOD Specific
Plan, and general plan updates for the cities
of Palm Springs, Inglewood, and Wildomar.
CHAD SO AICP | Associate
Assistant Project Manager
With a background in and a deep passion for
urban design, landscape architecture, and
engaging community outreach, Chad is a highly
valued member of PlaceWorks’ urban design
and planning team. In his work, Chad applies his impressive
experience in technical analysis with computer-aided design
programs and GIS to create
eye-catching graphics, maps,
and diagrams that help convey
exciting possibilities to clients
and communities. He then
incorporates these designs
53
Qualifications & Experience
4 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
into workable, implementable plans. Chad’s experience
includes serving as a primary designer and/or assistant
project manager for the Long Beach Downtown Shoreline
Vision Plan, the Glendora Station Area Plan, and Chapman
Corridor Revitalization Plan in Placentia.
NICOLE VERMILION | Principal
CEQA Principal and QA/AC for Air Quality, GHG, Energy & Noise
Nicole combines broad perspective and big-
picture thinking with a sound technical
grounding to find workable solutions to
environmental constraints. Nicole was the
CEQA principal and project manager for the Moorpark
General Plan Update EIR. She is responsible for expanding
and fine-tuning the team based on changes in CEQA
legislation, technology, and client needs and for ensuring
that PlaceWorks’ studies are defensible and consistent with
recent case law. She closely follows the rapid changes in
requirements and the latest information on CEQA
thresholds and analysis methodology. In addition to leading
the Moorpark General Plan EIR, Nicole’s other recent,
successful projects include the Brea Mall Mixed-Use Project
EIR, Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan EIR, and the
Ontario Regional Sports Complex EIR.
EMMA HAINES | Associate
CEQA Project Manager
Emma is a dedicated environmental planner
who served as Nicole Vermilion’s project
coordinator and lead CEQA analyst, researcher,
and writer for the Moorpark General Plan EIR.
A CEQA/NEPA generalist and frequent Assistant Project
Manager on a broad array of project types, Emma brings to
this project valuable Moorpark-specific knowledge and a
versatile skill set. In addition to coordinating with project
managers principals, client staff, and subconsultants, Emma
contributes to research, data analysis, processing, and
report writing for various types of CEQA documents. Her
other recent experience includes assisting on the Norwalk
Entertainment District-Civic Center Specific Plan EIR, the Los
Alamitos Town Center Strategic Plan General Plan EIR
Addendum, and CEQA review for general plan updates for
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Subconsultants Background/Experience
William Fulton Group Marketing/Economics
William Fulton Group (WFG) is a boutique consulting firm
that specializes in working with local governments and
nonprofits nationwide and in California on strategic
planning, transportation, housing, economic development,
and land use issues. The firm is located in Ventura and San
Diego, California, but does work across the country, with
recent projects in Idaho, Wyoming, Florida, and Texas, and
has successfully completed more than 100 projects for
clients on time and on budget. WFG recently completed
three economic development strategies for cities in Ventura
County–specifically, Moorpark, Ventura, and Port Hueneme.
WILLIAM FULTON FAICP | Land Use Planner
Marketing/Economics Advisor
William Fulton FAICP, is a land use planner and
economic development specialist with more
than 35 years of experience in California and
across the nation. As a consultant, he has
worked on downtown plans, general plans, specific plans,
and economic development plans for cities throughout
California. Bill has had a wide-ranging career including
leadership positions in the public, private, nonprofit, and
academic sectors. He is a former
Mayor of Ventura and Director of
Planning and Economic Development
for the City of San Diego. He has also
served as Director of the Kinder
Institute for Urban Research at Rice
University in Houston; Policy Director
for the advocacy group Smart
Growth America; and Principal and
Shareholder for PlaceWorks. Bill
currently serves as a Professor of Practice at the University
of California, San Diego and frequently teaches AICP CM
eligible courses on a wide range of topics.
DiCecco Architecture Inc. Architecture
DiCecco Architecture Inc. (DAI) is a full-service architecture,
land planning, and consulting firm based in Moorpark in
Ventura County, California. Founded in 1988, DAI is a
dedicated team of professionals with backgrounds in
architecture, planning and construction. DAI believes they
54
Qualifications & Experience
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 5
provide a community
perspective, that the built
environment is not
specifically isolated to
individual buildings, and
that the buildings provided
must relate to the broader
context of the community and site in which they are located.
MARK DiCECCO AIA, NCARB, LEED AP | President
Architecture Advisor
Mark DiCecco, AIA, is the founder and principal
of DiCecco Architecture Inc., with over four
decades of design experience. He holds a
Doctor of Architecture from the University of
Hawaii and a Bachelor of Architecture from Cal Poly
Pomona, with additional studies at the University of
Copenhagen and Harvard GSD. Licensed in four states,
NCARB certified, and a LEED AP, he has taught at Woodbury
University and UCLA Extension. Mark has served as a City of
Moorpark Planning Commissioner for 25 years and chaired
its General Plan Advisory Committee. His work spans from
playhouses to 700-acre master-planned communities.
Relevant Project Experience
PlaceWorks
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN, EIR, ZONING CODE
A Vision and Roadmap for the Future
The City of Moorpark selected PlaceWorks to lead the first
comprehensive update
of the General Plan since
1992, because of our
extensive planning
experience, innovative
approach to outreach,
GIS capabilities, CEQA
expertise, and reputation
for transforming legislatively mandated work products into
vehicles for real change. Led by project manager Jonathan
Nettler, with assistance from Alan Loomis, the General Plan
update included an analysis of existing conditions, public
outreach, development of a shared vision for Moorpark,
exploration of land use alternatives, update of all elements,
revision of the zoning code, and preparation of a program
EIR.
After three years of community-driven planning, the General
Plan and program EIR (led by Nicole Vermilion with
assistance from Emma Haines) were approved by a
unanimous vote of the city council.
Some of the significant themes
addressed in the General Plan were
new mixed-use and industrial-flex
land use designations, right-sizing of
maximum densities and intensities,
transition of underutilized auto-oriented shopping centers,
revitalization of the City’s historic core, and protection of
natural and scenic resources. The update also facilitates a
wider range of housing types and expansion of multimodal
circulation networks. A new Economic Development
Element was added, and updates to the Safety Element and
preparation of a vulnerability assessment helped to address
the increasing threats from wildfire and climate change.
Equitable infrastructure and services support the health of
all residents. It all adds up to a significant evolution for what
has historically been an agricultural then bedroom
community.
ARTESIA DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
Preparing for the Future Rail Line
The City of Artesia kicked off creation of the Artesia
Downtown Specific Plan in May 2023 with a completion goal
in summer 2025, anticipating the new Southeast Gateway
Metro Rail line connecting Artesia with Los Angeles Union
Station. Funded by
Metro Transit Oriented
Communities grants, the
Downtown Specific Plan
will dictate the scale of
future development
growth and opportunity
in Artesia’s downtown
district and curate
community gathering
spaces, enhance pedestrian and bicyclist experience, and
create new housing opportunities.
Just under 100 acres in total area, the Specific Plan
anticipates between 1,000 and 2,000 new residential units
in various urban development types, fulfilling a significant
portion of the city’s housing element obligations.
55
Qualifications & Experience
6 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
Additionally, the plan, led by Alan Loomis with Chad So,
imagines possibilities for a downtown-serving parking
structure and civic uses through a P3 public-private
partnership.
GLENDORA STATION AREA PLAN
A Vision for Transit-Oriented Housing and Growth
The City of Glendora is creating a Station Area Vision Plan to
guide transit-oriented development around the future
Glendora Metro Station. The plan will identify a vision for
how to accommodate housing around the station and
policies to implement the
vision. The station area
plan covers
approximately a half-mile
radius (8 acres) around
the future Glendora
Station. The plan includes
thoughtful development scenarios that provide a diverse
mix of housing intensity and development types to
accomplish the city’s housing element goals, while creating a
dynamic transit-oriented neighborhood appropriate to the
scale of community. PlaceWorks’ Alan Loomis, Chad So, and
others worked closely with the city and included a
multifaceted outreach approach to ensure the Vision Plan
aligns with community needs and values, including a public
open house, online survey, and planning commission study
sessions.
NORWALK CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR
Primestor Development, Inc.
A Plan for a Thriving, Experience-Oriented Civic Center
Led by Jonathan Nettler and staffed by key members of our
proposed team, the Norwalk Entertainment District Civic
Center-Specific Plan outlines a vision and development
framework for enhancing the city hall area as a vibrant place
for residents and visitors. At the site of the current city hall
lawn and surface parking lot, the mixed-use development
plan capitalizes on the unique features of the area, allows
flexibility for unique and imaginative design, and achieves
the city’s objectives to:
• Provide communal spaces for community gatherings.
• Diversify and expand the city’s housing stock with
multifamily housing, including affordable units.
• Create a sense of place and a destination with uses that
support existing uses in the district.
• Support transit and active transportation but provide
sufficient parking for current and future users.
The city and Primestor were appreciative that PlaceWorks
completed this project in a challenging 8-month schedule to
achieve approval before the upcoming elections and avoid
triggering the Surplus Land Act.
LOS ALAMITOS TOWN CENTER STRATEGIC PLAN
Opening the Heart of the Community
For more than a decade, Los Alamitos has encouraged the
development of a walkable and vibrant town center. In 2015
it updated the zoning code to allow mixed uses, but no one
has built any. The city then faced the enormous challenge of
creating a destination at the intersection of two 9-lane
arterials. Under the
management of
Alan Loomis,
PlaceWorks assisted
the city in building
on previous
planning efforts and
developed a series
of placemaking urban design strategies to illuminate a clear
pathway to entitlements that are attractive to developers
and help achieve city priorities.
The Los Alamitos Town Center Strategic Plan is informed by
meaningful engagement with stakeholders, property
owners, councilmembers, commissioners, and nonprofit
leaders. Its dynamic, scenario-based approach articulates a
flexible development strategy that can adapt to market
disruptions and defines implementation strategies with
incentives for private-sector developers or public-private
partnerships.
56
Qualifications & Experience
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 7
A central design feature of the plan is the conversion of Pine
Street to a “main street” experience that addresses multiple
objectives, such as ameliorating parking concerns, creating a
pedestrian-scaled environment to support local businesses,
and providing a flexible destination that can be repurposed
to host large-scale community events.
TUSTIN OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Shaping Tustin's Future with Objective Design Standards
Among the many objective design standards projects led by
Alan Loomis over the past five years, one of the latest is for
the city of Tustin. Our team developed objective design
standards to support
the city of Tustin’s
6th cycle housing
element
implementation. In
tandem with the
city’s rezoning
program,
PlaceWorks was
asked to prepare multifamily/mixed-use standards that
could apply citywide. These standards in particular serve as a
“template” to which other, neighborhood-specific objective
standards could be later be applied in key areas of the city.
Drafted over the course of six months, PlaceWorks
nonetheless engaged the planning commission in two study
sessions and facilitated a workshop with local developers,
including the Irvine Company. As a citywide document, the
standards avoided architectural style or typologies. Instead,
they are organized by the size of development, with
different levels of standards for small, medium, and large
developments. This makes the requirements for small-scale
development easier to process but still ensures high design
quality for large-scale projects. The standards address
larger-scale, site planning issues before focusing on topics
such as façades, roofline variation, open space, and colors
and materials. Finally, the standards address small-scale
topics such as mailrooms, utility equipment, and refuse
disposal.
William Fulton Group
MOORPARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Moorpark’s First-Ever Economic Development Strategic Plan
WFG, as a subconsultant to PFM Consulting Group, played
the role of Principal-In-Charge for Moorpark’s first-ever
Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan
lays out Moorpark’s economic development strategy for the
next four years, focused on target industries, attracting
distinctive retail businesses, and maintaining the city’s
momentum along High Street and the Downtown area.
VENTURA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Economic Development Strategy Update
WFG, again as a subconsultant to PFM, played the role of
Principal-In-Charge for Ventura’s first Economic
Development Strategy in more than 10 years. The Strategy
lays out action steps for Ventura to take over the next four
years, focused on strengthening local businesses and
building on Ventura’s existing industrial base.
DiCecco Architecture Inc.
MOORPARK’S HIGH STREET DEPOT
Downtown Revitalization
Designed by DAI, High Street Depot is a mixed-use
development that balances the needs of a growing small
town with sensitivity to the site’s historic character.
Extensive community
engagement played a
central role in the
planning process,
involving various
stakeholder groups
including business
owners, local
residents, and the broader community. Featuring a blend of
housing, commercial space, and a civic plaza, the project is
envisioned as a catalyst for revitalizing an underutilized
section of downtown. It is also the only large-scale project to
implement the C-OT zoning guidelines outlined in the
original Downtown Specific Plan. The development is
currently under construction.
57
Qualifications & Experience
8 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
RIVERPARK MASTER PLAN
Vibrant, Mixed-Use Community in Ventura County (Oxnard)
RiverPark is a 700-acre mixed-use, master-planned
community in Ventura County, originally entitled for
residential, commercial office and retail space, a hotel,
school, fire station,
and 10 parks. Since
2004, DAI has served
as the Town Master
Planner, overseeing
conformance with
the Specific Plan
across infrastructure, a variety of housing types (including
single-family, multifamily, for-sale, and rental), commercial
parcels, parks, and civic uses. Each phase of development
has involved community outreach and close coordination
with the City. DAI also authored multiple Specific Plan
Amendments, ultimately adjusting the plan to reduce
commercial space to 1.4 million square feet while increasing
the residential unit count to 4,200. The community
continues to evolve, with two hotels and 200 apartment
units currently under construction.
PROPOSED APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
Project Understanding
Since the city’s founding in the first decade of the 20th
century, Downtown has been the heart of Moorpark. It’s
been 120 years since the arrival of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, and High Street remains the place where
Moorpark’s history and community are celebrated, where
the arts and culture are spotlighted, where a stroll among
historic pepper trees and small-town storefronts can
transport you to another time, and where Moorpark most
feels like itself and like nowhere else.
Downtown is not just High Street. It is home to some of the
city’s oldest and most diverse residential neighborhoods. It
includes unique historic treasures, legacy businesses, and
community anchors as well as underutilized properties
poised for a new future. It includes a center of civic activity
and a mix of eclectic and discordant uses. It is a gateway to
the city and a unique destination in Ventura County. It is a
transportation hub linking Moorpark to the wider region. It
is where the majority of residents and visitors connect to the
small town feel of Moorpark.
Not since Los Angeles Avenue became the focus of
economic activity has Downtown been as well positioned for
reinvigoration. Recent years have seen a renewal of energy
and activity on High Street, with new businesses like M on
High and Freda’s changing perceptions about the area and
renewing investment interest in downtown. High Street
Depot will soon welcome new residents and businesses and
provide a new community gathering green space. The City’s
new public art and streetscape enhancements will enrich
and beautify the public experience. These sparks of new life
have occurred within the context of an outdated Specific
Plan that is difficult to administer and inconsistent with the
City’s newly updated General Plan and Zoning Code.
There is an urgent need for an updated Downtown Specific
Plan to stoke the sparks of renewal and guide the evolution
of Downtown in sync with the vision established in the
General Plan and building off the City’s first Economic
Development Strategic Plan. Moorpark has a once-in-a-
generation opportunity to provide the roadmap and
framework to guide and encourage Downtown’s next act
while enhancing the characteristics that make it special.
We are honored to have the opportunity to partner with the
people of Moorpark on a project of this significance and
importance. To assist the City in shepherding this pivotal
opportunity, we have assembled a team of experts who
deeply understand through experience Moorpark’s values
and its regulatory, land use, economic, and design context.
We understand that the updated Downtown Specific Plan
must:
• Meet State requirements for streamlined entitlement
processes and objective standards while providing tools
that ensure local control and enhance Downtown’s
unique character and historic sense of place.
58
Proposed Approach & Methodology
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 9
• Accommodate a greater mix of uses, including housing,
while navigating the challenges of aged infrastructure and
building stock, and concerns of land use compatibility.
• Encourage expanded access via multiple modes of
transportation, including by rail, bus, bicycle, and on foot,
while recognizing the reality of the private automobile as
the primary means of access and addressing community
concerns about parking.
• Ensure a sustainable future for legacy business and
community anchors while expanding opportunities for
small local business incubation.
• Evaluate opportunities to unite Downtown merchants,
potentially in the form of a Business Improvement District
or Property-Based Improvement District to enhance and
maintain the character of Downtown and attract future
investment.
• Establish or enhance linkages to the City’s other activity
areas and promote connections to workforce and college
populations.
• Support the health and well-being of residents of all ages
through the provision of parks and open spaces, services,
and amenities.
Project Approach and Methodology
Since the adoption of SB 35 and SB330, PlaceWorks has
assisted multiple cities across California prepare and adopt
“objective design standards” (ODS) to facilitate ministerial
staff approvals of housing developments. Often replacing
existing design guidelines, our ODS work precisely describes
architectural design concepts such as height and façade
modulation, sidewalk frontages, open space amenities, and,
for some clients, architectural styles. The conceptual
strategy and illustration of our ODS draw significantly from
two decades of practice with form-based codes (FBC). As
both authors and users of FBCs, we have learned that
certain typical FBC features, such as modulation standards,
are easily understood by the average property owner and
architect, whereas more encyclopedic definitions, such as
for building typology, often fail to match up with unique site
circumstances, developer proformas, and the ongoing
creativity of the market as it invents new housing and retail
models. In consequence, our ODS work focuses on overall
building form and specific performance standards.
Nonetheless, downtowns are unique environments and
often require site-specific placemaking gestures from
private development, such architectural towers or front
doors facing toward particular streets or open spaces. In
context, we agree that the “regulating plan” drawn in many
FBCs is a useful tool to mandate these kinds of architectural
responses to unique site conditions.
Whether form-based code or objective design standards,
this approach should be a win-win solution for the
community. For both developers and community members,
the standards should provide predictability and
transparency. For developers, the standards will clearly
articulate the City’s expectation for new development,
accelerating the time frame between application and
opening and bringing new investment to the market quickly.
For residents, the standards ensure that new development
will enhance the community character and fulfill Moorpark’s
vision for Downtown.
To establish the vision for Downtown Moorpark, we propose
a sequential series of workshops, where the content and
feedback of each workshop builds upon the previous and
steadily leads to adoption hearings by the City Council. In
contrast to a hyperfocused, 3- or 4-day on-site workshop or
“charrette,” we have found that this measured, step-by-step
strategy gives community members and other interested
stakeholders time to absorb, assess, and acclimate to the
evolving downtown plan. We find that this incremental
approach to public outreach is inherently more inclusive
because it does not privilege stakeholders who have the
time to participate in an extended, weeklong planning
event. Moreover, by programming gaps between outreach
events, the planning team can also assess participation and
adjust advertising and outreach if needed to engage specific
demographics or populations that may be under-
represented in prior meetings.
Finally, we will note that we have not included a parking
study or task to offer parking recommendations in the
following scope of work. We understand that parking is a
topic of concern in Downtown Moorpark, and we
recommend that a full evaluation of Downtown’s parking
59
Proposed Approach & Methodology
10 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
usage, needs, and policies through a focused study.
Considering that AB 2097 now prohibits cities from imposing
minimum parking standards near transit stations, the
primary parking problem in Downtown Moorpark will be the
management and regulation of public parking resources,
namely surface lots and on-street parking. The most
effective means of managing parking usage for these
resources will likely be price controls and preferential
parking districts. Understanding the full policy implications
of these strategies, as well as gathering and assessing the
data to justify the adoption of such strategies, is largely
separate and outside the scope of the Specific Plan’s charge
to establish land use and design standards for private
development. Though we are prepared to support such a
detailed study, we recommend that it be given its own
public process following adoption of the Specific Plan.
Scope of Work
Task 1. Project Management and
Coordination
This task accounts for time committed to overall client and
team coordination meetings.
Subtask 1.1 Project Kick-off Meeting
To initiate work, we will hold a virtual kick-off meeting with
City staff, SCAG’s project manager and other relevant staff.
We will confirm lines of communication, establish the
schedule for standing project management meetings
(Subtask 1.3), and verify the scope of work and proposed
schedule (Subtask 1.2).
Deliverable(s):
» Meeting agenda, notes, and action Items
Subtask 1.2 Project Management Plan and Schedule
In tandem with the kick-off meeting to confirm the project
delivery strategy, we presume that we may need to make
minor adjustments to the scope, schedule, or public
outreach sequence as we have detailed here, and our first
project management meeting will be dedicated to this
discussion.
Deliverable(s):
» Updated scope, schedule, and budget as required and
Project Management Plan (PMP)
Subtask 1.3 Project Management and Meetings
We include here standing project management meetings to
account for the ongoing dialogue we will need to have with
City staff throughout the planning process, which we
anticipate running approximately 13 months. Typically,
these one-hour meetings will involve the project managers
from the City and PlaceWorks, with others joining as
needed. Per the RFP, we expect these meetings to occur
monthly. These meetings are ideally suited for Zoom or MS
Teams online collaboration. Periodic phone check-ins (up to
12 hours) will help to ensure that the City and the
PlaceWorks team are in regular communication and can
maintain the project schedule by properly aligning workflow,
staffing resources, and coordination for larger group
meetings. We have included in this task an allowance for
necessary coordination meetings among our consultant
team.
Deliverable(s):
» Meeting agendas, notes, and action Items (per meeting
and as appropriate)
Subtask 1.4 Monthly Invoicing and Reporting
We will prepare monthly progress memos that detail
meetings and deliverables completed as supplements to our
monthly invoices. We have experience working with
multiple granting agencies to ensure these monthly reports
meet our client’s grant obligations. We will prepare such
reports as required by SCAG and the City of Moorpark.
Deliverable(s):
» Monthly progress reports and invoices
Subtask 1.5 Project Close-Out Files
As required by SCAG, PlaceWorks will assemble project files
and deliverables into task-based subfolders to convey to the
City of Moorpark and SCAG.
Deliverable(s):
» Project close-out files and folders
Subtask 1.6 REAP Metrics
PlaceWorks will collaborate with the City and SCAG to
establish relevant metrics and data points to track the
Specific Plan’s performance as measured over time.
Deliverable(s):
» REAP Metrics
60
Proposed Approach & Methodology
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 11
Task 2. Public Outreach
We propose an arc of community participation that will
inform and create the Downtown Specific Plan policies and
objectives. This arc uses a variety of community engagement
tools, such as pop-ups and public workshops, to engender
public participation in crafting a vision for Downtown
Moorpark.
This program of meetings is designed to solicit broad
community participation (including residents of
disadvantaged and historically disinvested communities),
highlight key areas of debate and discussion versus topics of
broad agreement, identify invested stakeholders, and solicit
their sustained engagement.
Subtask 2.1 Outreach and Engagement Plan
We believe the following sequence and structure of
meetings will yield effective results for Moorpark, but it will
be important to verify this assumption. Therefore, at least
one of the standing project meetings with City staff will be
used to confirm the scope and intention of the Community
Engagement Plan as well as the timing and schedule of each
meeting. Additionally, we will discuss and confirm
advertising strategies and outreach methods so as to
connect with all the critical stakeholders. As directed and
recommended by City staff, we will adjust this overall
strategy. Our agreed-upon engagement plan will be
presented in an infographic, providing a living schedule and
a detailed description of outreach activities to share with
stakeholders.
Deliverable(s):
» Community Engagement Plan and Schedule
Subtask 2.2 Outreach Events and Summary
We propose to develop the core concepts of the Downtown
Specific Plan across three workshops or open houses. These
workshops will enable residents, business/property owners,
activists, and other interested community members to
engage our team at critical decision points in the planning
process. The PlaceWorks team will organize and facilitate
the workshops, with City staff assisting in logistics, such as
advertising the event and securing venue(s).
We propose to host all three workshops at a location within
or near the project area, organized as a 3- to 4-hour open
house, where community members and property owners
can arrive as their schedules permit and stay as long as they
wish. To encourage participation, we will prepare postcard
mailers announcing the workshops for distribution to
property owners and residents in the project area at City
expense. As residents, property and business owners engage
our project team during the open house, we will also be able
to conduct one-on-one stakeholder interviews.
First Workshop: August 2025
The purpose of the first workshop will be to introduce the
Downtown Specific Plan to the Moorpark community;
present initial findings drawn from the General Plan
documents and process, the Economic Development Plan,
and existing conditions analysis specific to the Downtown;
and further identify salient issues for the proposed Specific
Plan. Presentations prepared for this workshop will include
maps illustrating the footprints and designs of current
projects in and near the Specific Plan area, including the
Civic Center, Everett Street Terraces, and Vendra Gardens.
Remaining parcels in the Specific Plan area will be evaluated
for their relative redevelopment potential using a
methodology that scores properties based on parcel size,
shared ownership with adjacent parcels, lot coverage,
assessed value, and other factors.
The goals of the workshop will be to 1) confirm and add to
our understanding of the Downtown Moorpark land use
pattern, development potential, and other existing
conditions, 2) identify the primary development problems of
Downtown Moorpark as understood by community
members, and 3) identify topics of broad agreement in the
community versus topics that will require more in-depth
discussion.
Deliverable(s):
» Postcard Mailers to be distributed at City expense
» Open House Presentation and Engagement Materials
» Summary of Open House input and comments
Country Days Pop-Up: October 4, 2025 (OPTIONAL TASK)
To further promote the Downtown planning process, we can
host a pop-up booth on High Street during the Country Days
festival on October 4th. Exhibits at the booth will include
maps and illustrations of the Specific Plan area as presented
during the First Workshop as well as flyers and postcards
61
Proposed Approach & Methodology
12 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
advertising the Second Workshop later in the month.
Interactive material will include brief visual preference
surveys and QR codes linked to the project website for more
information. We anticipate a relatively small staff team of
three people at this booth, including at least one City staff
member.
Second Workshop: October 2025
The Second Workshop will explore the possibilities of
properties with the greatest development potential as
identified in the First Workshop. We will think of these sites
as “catalytic” or “transformative” projects for the next phase
of Downtown’s evolution. We will use architectural
visualizations, including a 3D model of the Downtown, to
situate possible uses and building forms in the existing
context of Downtown. Other visualizations will include an
illustrative site plan that defines the circulation pattern,
blocks, building configurations, parking, open space areas,
and other public realm amenities. The concept plan will be
supported by precedent images of buildings and places that
represent the type of development and character that is
being proposed. The feedback from the community
regarding these visualizations will inform the overall vision
for Downtown and design standards to be developed in the
final Specific Plan.
Like the first workshop, we believe this workshop is best
suited for a multi-hour open house enabling “drop-in” visits
by interested parties. We have scheduled this workshop in
late October, shortly before Halloween, to encourage broad
community participation, with family-friendly activities such
as a costume parade and pumpkin decorating that can run
concurrent with planning discussions.
Deliverable(s):
» Postcard Mailers to be distributed at City expense
» Open house presentation and engagement material
» Summary of open house input and comments
Joint Planning Commission / City Council Study Session:
November 2025 (OPTIONAL TASK)
The evolving Downtown Specific Plan, as developed in the
first two community workshops, will be presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council, in a joint meeting.
These meetings will be structured in a “study session”
format, permitting a free flow of comments and ideas
between the commissioners or council members and the
project team. Any relevant comments from the workshops
will also be communicated to the Commission and/or
Council.
At this meeting, the Commission and/or Council will be
provided with the Existing Conditions assessment and will
have this background to inform their discussion and
potential direction to the project team. Alternatives
generated in Second Workshop will be shared with the
Commission and/or Council. The resulting dialogue will allow
the commissioners and/or council members to weigh in on
the various alternatives and provide policy direction on the
draft plan, informing the work that will come on the final
plan.
This presentation will therefore also highlight topic areas
where the commissioners and council members may
exercise their leadership role in the community and
establish City policy in the absence of community consensus.
Deliverable(s):
» Presentation and attendance at one joint Planning
Commission/City Council study session
Third Workshop: February 2026
Upon completion of Public Draft Specific Plan, we will share
the plan in a Third and final workshop. At this workshop we
will present the vision framework, policies, and standards of
the proposed Downtown Specific Plan with the larger
Moorpark community. This will allow property owners and
members of the public to fully digest the potential
recommendations of the plan before such
recommendations are presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for official City review and
adoption.
Deliverable(s):
» Postcard Mailers to be distributed at City expense
» Open house presentation and engagement material
» Summary of open house input and comments
Summary Reports
We will produce a summary report of the aforementioned
outreach activities, presented with photographs and
infographics.
62
Proposed Approach & Methodology
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 13
Deliverable(s):
» Summary Report of Outreach Events and Community
Feedback
Task 3. Specific Plan
We will prepare the Downtown Specific Plan in compliance
with State law. Though the following annotated table of
contents is our preliminary recommendation for organizing
the Specific Plan content, we will modify this structure as
needed based on conversations with City
Introduction. The Introduction will briefly describe the
content and structure of the Downtown Specific Plan and
provide a brief overview of existing conditions. This chapter
will also include a statement regarding the Specific Plan’s
relationship to the City of Moorpark’s General Plan,
Municipal Code, and other relevant policies. Finally, the
Introduction will include a "Users’ Guide” illustrating how to
find and use relevant information in the Specific Plan.
Planning Process. We anticipate a separate chapter or
subchapter in the Introduction to describe the role the
public played in crafting and creating the Specific Plan. This
section will highlight key constituencies, meeting dates,
outreach events, and feedback provided by the public. This
chapter will also discuss the alternatives considered in the
planning process, providing the background to understand
why the preferred plan was selected. This chapter will be
largely drawn from the summary of outreach produced in
Task 2.
Vision. We believe that the overall vision of the Downtown
Specific Plan deserves its own chapter in the Specific Plan.
This chapter will be copiously illustrated with high-quality
plan illustrations, three-dimensional renderings, and
photographs of relevant precedents. Understanding that the
Specific Plan will need to entice investment and
redevelopment of existing properties in order to implement
the Downtown Specific Plan Vision, this chapter will be
written to serve as an economic development sales pitch.
Development Plan and Polices. The Specific Plan’s overall
planning principles, policies, and objectives will be detailed
in this chapter. These policies will reinforce and build on the
Vision, inform the specific development standards and
implementation strategies of the Specific Plan, and establish
the project objectives to be evaluated by the subsequent
CEQA analysis.
Infrastructure Plan (Public Realm Improvements). This
chapter will address access to and through the Downtown
Specific Plan, with a focus on connecting housing,
commercial, and retail in the Downtown Specific Plan and
land uses outside the Specific Plan by all transportation
modes—walking, bicycling, driving, and transit. This chapter
will establish standards for new streets, pedestrian
pathways, and open spaces in the Specific Plan as well as
any proposed modifications to existing streets.
Development Regulations (Allowable Uses, Standards, and
Guidelines). This chapter will contain customized design and
development standards to facilitate new investment in
Downtown. This section will address and supersede existing
development standards in the City’s municipal code, as
deemed appropriate. Standards will include:
• Regulating Plan (or Land Use and District Plan)
• Permitted, prohibited, and conditional land-uses (unless
necessary, we will rely on land use terms defined by the
City’s municipal code).
• Inclusionary housing standards, as deemed appropriate
during the public process.
• Form-Based development standards such as:
» Building intensity (floor area ratio and building height)
» Lot coverage (building coverage, hardscape areas,
landscape/open space areas)
» Build-to lines/setbacks (front, side, and rear build-to
lines and street and yard setbacks)
» Block standards (establishing maximum length and any
requirements for internal/new streets)
• Additional Form-Based design standards, expressed as
Objective Design Standards in compliance with SB 35,
covering topics such as:
» Site design
» Landscape design
» Building articulation, massing, and form
» Ground-floor treatment
» Architectural character and style as determined
appropriate
63
Proposed Approach & Methodology
14 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
Implementation. This chapter will identify actions and
strategies required to implement the Specific Plan.
Discussion of services and infrastructure needed to
implement the plan will be provided in this chapter,
including any specific policies regarding utilities, public
safety, parks, etc. This chapter will accordingly discuss any
funding mechanisms that should be considered following
the adoption of the Specific Plan, including grant
opportunities, enhanced infrastructure financing districts
(EFID), assessment districts, business improvement districts
(BID), etc.
Administration. This chapter will detail the development
review process for projects in the Specific Plan if it is
determined necessary and desirable to deviate from the
review process in the municipal code.
Subtask 3.1 Internal Draft Downtown Specific Plan
(Administrative Draft)
Following the first two workshops described in Task 2, we
will prepare an Admin Draft Specific Plan in collaboration
with City staff. We anticipate one round of review, wherein
PlaceWorks will submit a Draft Specific Plan for City staff’s
redline comments to be incorporated by the PlaceWorks
team. Following the receipt of staff comments, PlaceWorks
will prepare the Public Review Draft Specific Plan.
Deliverable(s):
» Admin Draft of the Plan for City staff review (PDF)
Subtask 3.2 Environmental Review
PlaceWorks, as author of the 2050 General Plan EIR, is well
positioned to prepare a streamlined and concise Addendum
to the Certified EIR. Our scope assumes a qualitative analysis
(i.e., no traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, or
noise modeling), given the intent for the Specific Plan to be
within the scope of General Plan and Certified EIR and
within the land use/zoning buildout projections already
analyzed. The Addendum will address why the Specific Plan
would not generate new impacts or increase the magnitude
of impacts compared to those analyzed in the Certified EIR.
We assume one round of review of the Screencheck EIR
Addendum by the City. Following receipt of consolidated
comments, PlaceWorks will prepare a Final Addendum to
support CEQA approvals of the Specific Plan. Upon approval,
PlaceWorks will prepare and file the Notice of
Determination with the County and State Clearinghouse as
required by CEQA. Modification to the scope of work,
budget, and time frame may be necessary if additional
rounds of review or substantive changes are required. As
stated in the RFP, should the Specific Plan exceed
assumptions of the Certified EIR, PlaceWorks will advise the
City promptly and prepare an additional scope and fee.
Deliverable(s):
» Screencheck EIR Addendum for City staff review
» Final EIR Addendum
Subtask 3.3 Public Review Draft Plan
This Draft of the Downtown Specific Plan will be the first
draft of the plan available to the public. The Public Review
Draft will reflect edits to the Admin Draft as directed by City
staff and represent the project team’s initial proposal to the
community.
Deliverable(s):
» Public Review Draft (PDF)
Subtask 3.4 Public Hearing Draft Plan Revisions
Following the community’s input PlaceWorks will make
appropriate edits to the Public Review Draft Plan to produce
the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan for review by City staff.
Following the receipt of staff comments, PlaceWorks will
prepare the final Public Hearing Draft to be presented to the
Planning Commission in Task 4.
Deliverable(s):
» Public Hearing Draft of the Plan for City staff review
(PDF)
» Final Public Hearing Draft (PDF)
Task 4. Public Hearings and Adoption
We will support City staff as the Downtown Specific Plan and
CEQA clearance are brought to hearings for adoption.
Subtask 4.1 Public Hearings and Adoption
We anticipate participation in one Planning Commission
meeting and one City Council meeting during the adoption
process.
Subtask 4.2 Adopted Downtown Specific Plan
At the conclusion of the City Council hearings, we will edit
the Specific Plan as needed to reflect the Council’s approval.
64
Proposed Approach & Methodology
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 15
We will include the adopting resolution and/or ordinances
as text in the Plan document as part of these final edits.
Deliverable(s):
» Presentation and attendance at one Planning
Commission hearing
» Presentation and attendance at one City Council
hearing
» Materials for staff report and presentations, as
necessary
Task 5. Executive Report
Following project completion, PlaceWorks will prepare a
summary report highlighting key project milestones, best
practices and lessons learned that may be applied to future
SCAG projects.
Deliverable(s):
» Executive Summary Report
PROJECT SCHEDULE
65
Project Schedule
16 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
PLACEWORKS: PLANS THAT LEAD TO SWIFT CHANGE
66
References
Resumes
APPENDIX
67
68
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS A-1
APPENDIX
References
References for the PlaceWorks team are provided below. We encourage the City to contact each and every one of these
references to gain an idea of the quality and history of our work.
Project(s) Client Contact Brief Description of Services, Relevant Staff, Awards
PRIMESTOR
Norwalk Civic Center-
Entertainment District Specific
Plan and EIR
David Abasta, Vice Director of
Development Services
PRIMESTOR
9950 Jefferson Blvd, Bldg 2
Culver City CA 90232
310.774.7979
dabasta@primestor.com
Specific Plan, Outreach, CEQA: AQ/GHG/Energy Analysis, Construction HRA,
Phase I ESA, Noise/Vibration Analysis, Tribal Noticing and Consultation
Support
Relevant Staff: Nettler, Vermilion, Haines
Awards: 2023 Outstanding Environmental Analysis Document, AEP
California; and 2023 Environmental Planning Award of Merit, APA Los
Angeles
CITY OF ARTESIA
Artesia Downtown Corridor
Specific Plan and EIR
Karen Lee, Special Projects
Manager
CITY OF ARTESIA
18747 Clarkdale Ave
Artesia CA 90701
562.865.6262 x234
klee@cityofartesia.us
Specific Plan, Urban Design, Development Standards, Housing Element
Compliance Review GIS Mapping, Environmental Impact Report, Technical
Studies
Relevant Staff: Loomis, So, Vermilion
CITY OF GLENDORA
Glendora Station Area Plan
and Associated CEQA
Hans Friedel AICP, Principal
Planner
CITY OF GLENDORA
116 E. Foothill Blvd
Glendora CA 91741-3380
626.852.4818
hfriedel@cityofglendora.org
Urban Design Visioning, Public Outreach, Market Analysis, Build-Out
Scenarios, Housing Element Compliance Review, GIS Mapping
Relevant Staff: Loomis, So
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
Town Center Strategic Plan
and Urban Design
Tom Oliver, Senior Planner
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
3191 Katella Ave
Los Alamitos CA 90720
562.431.3538 x303
toliver@cityoflosalamitos.org
Urban Design Visioning, Conceptual Streetscape Design, Market Analysis,
Build-Out Scenarios, CEQA Analysis, Graphic Design, GIS Mapping
Relevant Staff: Loomis, Vermilion, Haines
69
Appendix
A-2 CITY OF MOORPARK • Downtown Specific Plan Update
Resumes
Resumes for each of our team members are provided on the following pages.
70
ALAN LOOMIS AICP
Principal, Urban Design
Alan Loomis is an award-winning urban designer, planner and educator.
As Principal of Urban Design in PlaceWorks’ downtown LA office, Alan is
responsible for leading our regional urban design practice while playing
a role in projects throughout California.
A 15-year veteran of City Hall, Alan has directed a wide range of urban
design-based policy projects leading multi-disciplinary teams through an
equally wide range of public outreach programs. As City Urban Designer for
Santa Monica Alan was the City’s lead for Promenade 3.0, a comprehensive
redesign proposal of the iconic Third Street Promenade. Before Santa
Monica, Alan led the urban design program for the City of Glendale for 12
years. Starting in 2005 as the City’s first on-staff urban designer, and later
as deputy director of the Community Development Department, he built
an award-winning planning team that managed design review, historic
preservation, citywide planning, and mobility programs.
Alan is a frequent speaker and tour guide on Los Angeles history and
urbanism. He has participated in ULI TAP panels, sat on juries for
APA Awards and the City of Los Angeles “LA Lights the Way” design
competition, and served on interview panels to select new planners,
urban designers and architects for the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena,
Santa Monica, and Santa Ana, among others. From 2014 to 2020 he also
served on the Pasadena Design Commission.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
•Glendora Station Area Plan | Glendora CA
•Downtown Shoreline Specific Plan and EIR | Long Beach CA
•Artesia Downtown Specific Plan and EIR | Artesia CA
•Glendora Meda Avenue Plaza Urban Design | Glendora CA
•San Bernardino Downtown Specific Plan, as part of the City’s General Plan
Update | San Bernardino CA
•Hesperia General Plan Update Objective Design Standards| Hesperia CA
•Los Alamitos Town Center Strategic Plan | Los Alamitos CA
•Temecula Old Town Parklets | Temecula CA
•Objective Design Standards for:
»Western Riverside Council of Governments
»Orange County Council of Governments
»Anaheim CA
»Glendora CA
»Temecula CA
»Menifee CA
»Murrieta CA
»Norco CA
•On-Call Design Services for:
»Rancho Cucamonga (Urban Design)
»Santa Clarita (Urban Design and Architecture)
»Wildomar (Architecture)
•Community Design for:
»The Ontario Plan | Ontario CA
»Eastvale 2040 General Plan Update | Eastvale CA
»Fountain Valley 2040 General Plan Update | Fountain Valley CA
EDUCATION
•MA, Architecture, Southern
California Institute of Architecture
•BA, Religious Studies / Theology,
University of Detroit, Mercy
AFFILIATIONS
•American Planning Association
•Los Angeles Forum for Architecture
and Urban Design
LEADERSHIP & COMMUNITY
•Facilities and Technology
Committee, Mayfield Junior School,
Pasadena CA, 2024-present
•Board of Advisors, Woodbury
University School of Architecture,
2019–2023
•Juror, “LA Lights the Way” Design
Competition | City of Los Angeles,
2020
•Juror, APA California Awards, 2020
•Member, Pasadena Design Review
Commission, 2014–2020
•Member, Glendale Arts Master Plan
Task Force, 2017–2018
•Member, Pasadena Civic Center
Task Force, 2017–2018
•Commission Chair, Pasadena Design
Review Commission, 2016–2017
Team member since 2020
71
ALAN LOOMIS
Principal, Urban Design
aloomis@placeworks.com
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
•Promenade 3.0, Vision Plan | Santa Monica CA
•South Glendale Community Plan, Comprehensive General Plan Policies and
Design Guidelines | Glendale CA
•North Glendale Community Plan, Comprehensive General Plan Policies and
Design Guidelines | Glendale CA
•Glendale Downtown Mobility Study, Comprehensive Transit, Parking, and
Transportation Plan | Glendale CA
•Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, Urban Design Plan, Guidelines, and Zoning
Standards | Glendale CA
•Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, Transit-Oriented District | Santa Clarita CA
PUBLICATIONS
•“The Americana at Brand,” in SAH Archipedia, University of Virginia Press, 2018
•“Panel: Dingbat as an Urban Typology,” in Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles
Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, Doppelhouse Press, 2016
• “Glendale’s Downtown Specific Plan,” in Planning Los Angeles, Planners Press, 2012
•“Streetscapes,” Form & Landscape, online “Pacific Standard Time” exhibit at
pstp.edison.com, May 2013
•“The Once and Future Mall,” Forum Annual 2004, LA Forum for Architecture
& Urban Design, 2004
•“Down by the River,” arcCA 4.03, Winter 2003/04
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
•“Crafting Residential Objective Development Standards” panel| AP-OC and
Planning Directors’ Association of Orange County, Tustin CA , March 16, 2023
•“Al Fresco 2.0: Long-Term Solutions” online panel | ULI-LA, October 18, 2022
•“Objective Design: A New Oxymoron?” panel | APA-OC, May 2021
•Podcast: “Human City,” December 17, 2020
•Radio: “Promenade 3.0” appearance on DnA: Design and Architecture, KCRW
89.9 fm, September 3, 2019
•Podcast: “Archinect Next Up: Arroyo Seco Weekend,” June 24, 2017
•“City of Gardens” panel | 2016 APA-CA Conference, Pasadena CA
•“Beyond the Freeway” panel | 2016 APA-CA Conference, Pasadena CA
•“Laboratory for Modernity, Los Angeles, 1940-1990” | Pacific Standard Time
Presents, Pasadena CA, 2013
•“New Urbanism and the Comprehensive Plan” panel | 2008 APA National
Conference, Las Vegas NV
•“Creating Form-Based Comprehensive Plans” panel | 2008 16th Congress for
New Urbanism, Austin TX
•“Implementing Form-Based Codes” panel | 2007 15th Congress for New
Urbanism, Philadelphia PA
•Radio: “A park on top of a freeway?” appearance on Take Two, KPCC 89.3 fm,
March 15, 2016
•Podcast: “Curating the City: Urban Designer Alan Loomis on Archinect
Sessions One-to-One #12,” February 22, 2016
• Video: “UNIQLO LA: Urban Designer Alan Loomis” interview | UNIQLO, July 7, 2014
AWARDS
•2018 LA Conservancy Preservation Award | Glendale Central Library Renovation
• 2016 ASLA Southern California Merit Award | Space 134 Vision Plan (Fwy Cap Park)
•2015 Implementation Award of Excellence, Large Jurisdiction | APA CA |
Glendale Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility Study
72
JONATHAN NETTLER AICP
Associate Principal / LA Regional Director
Jonathan is an accomplished leader with over 25 years of experience in
impacting urban policy and practice to create more healthy, vibrant, and
sustainable places. He has developed a unique cross-disciplinary skill set
while working in real estate and land use across the United States and
on international projects. Jonathan’s expertise includes policy planning,
project management and delivery, policy development, public outreach,
team leadership, partnership-building, nonprofit governance, grant
writing, and communications. His approach to planning uses skills honed
as an architectural historian and large-scale planner and policy-maker,
and his focus on the processes of spatial production creates unique
places that reflect attentiveness to stakeholder involvement, historical
precedent, and surrounding context.
Jonathan’s work at PlaceWorks has consisted primarily of leading
comprehensive planning projects, such as the Westside Area Plan,
general plan updates for five southern California cities, and working on a
number of high profiles projects focused on further housing production
in southern California.
Before joining PlaceWorks, Jonathan was the senior director with the
Urban Land Institute’s Los Angeles District Council. He directed a multi-
faceted program, including coordinating 50 educational programs each
year, providing technical assistance and land use expertise to local
partners, and developing marketing and communications strategies to
increase member engagement and sponsorship support.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
•Inglewood General Plan Update Phase 1 | Inglewood CA
•Palm Springs General Plan Update and EIR Addendum | Palm Springs CA
•Moorpark General Plan Update and EIR | Moorpark CA
•Wildomar General Plan Update and EIR | Wildomar CA
•South Pasadena General Plan Update and Downtown Specific Plan | South
Pasadena CA
•Westside Area Plan | Los Angeles County CA
•Panorama City Center Specific Plan | Los Angeles CA
•Norwalk Entertainment District-Civic Center Specific Plan and EIR | Norwalk CA
•SCAG Industry Forum: Housing Supportive Infrastructure | SCAG Region CA
•Accelerating Housing Production Technical Assistance Services for California
Department of Housing & Community Development | Statewide
•Connect Southwest LA TOD Specific Plan (West Athens-Westmont region) |
Los Angeles County CA
•Land Use Analysis for US 101 Multimodal Study | Ventura County CA
•Commercial Design Standards | Wildomar CA
EDUCATION
•MA, Architecture, University of
California, Los Angeles
•BA, History (cum laude), Boston
University
CERTIFICATIONS
•American Institute of Certified
Planners, Certified Planner #024276
AFFILIATIONS
•American Planning Association
•Urban Land Institute
Team member since 2018
73
JONATHAN NETTLER
Associate Principal
jnettler@placeworks.com
•Multifamily Residential Design Standards | Wildomar CA
AWARDS
•Moorpark General Plan 2050 | 2024 Comprehensive Plan Award of
Excellence, APACA Central Coast
•Moorpark General Plan 2050 | 2024 Planning Document Merit Award, AEP -CA
•Palm Springs Housing Element | 2024 Opportunity and Empowerment Award
of Merit, APACA Central Coast
•Moorpark 2021-2029 Housing Element | 2023 Comprehensive Plan Award of
Merit, APACA Central Coast
•San Pedro Waterfront and Promenade Master Development Plan | 2005
Planning Excellence Award, APACA-LA
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS & PUBLICATIONS
•Unsprawl: Remixing Spaces as Places, editor, Planetizen Press, 2013
•“The Power of Place: On Democracy and Public Participation in Planning,”
Planetizen.com, 2013 (op-ed)
•“New Uses in Old Places” | 2022 APACA Conference
•“Cracks Appear in LA’s Grand Transportation Plan,” Planetizen.com, 2012 (op-ed)
•“Communicating Value on the Cheap: Using Digital Tools to Grow Bike, Ped &
Placemaking Advocacy” | 2012 Pro Walk Pro Bike, Long Beach CA
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
•Advisory Board Member, Urban Land Institute (ULI) Los Angeles, 2019 to
present
•Vice-Director for Professional Development & Board Member, APACA Los
Angeles, 2012–2016
LEADERSHIP & COMMUNITY
•Hollywood Heritage Board of Directors, Board Member, 2012–2018
•Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, Urban Design & Preservation Committee
Member, 2011–2014
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
EE&K Architects
•Los Angeles Maritime Museum, Historic Structures Report | Los Angeles CA
• San Pedro Waterfront & Promenade Master Plan and Design Guidelines | Los
Angeles CA
•North Embarcadero Waterfront | San Diego CA
Historic Resources Group
•Patriotic Hall | Los Angeles CA
•South Seas House | Los Angeles CA
•Citizens’ Bank Building | Wilmington CA
ULI Technical Assistance
•The Goodyear Tract, Councilmember Curren D. Price, Jr. | Los Angeles CA
•St Vincent de Paul, Society of St Vincent de Paul | Los Angeles CA
•Leimert Park Village, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Second District | Los
Angeles County CA
•Downtown Long Beach Waterfront, Downtown Long Beach Alliance
74
CHAD SO AICP
Associate
Chad So is a valued member of PlaceWorks’ community planning and
design team, with a background in landscape architecture and a deep
passion for urban design. He develops urban design and streetscape
design concepts, first/last mile plans for transit stations, and multimodal
strategic and specific plans. In his design work, Chad combines technical
analysis with computer-aided design programs and GIS to create eye-
catching graphics, maps, and diagrams. These are incorporated into
plans and used to convey planning and urban design concepts to clients,
other consultants, and community members.
Before joining PlaceWorks, Chad was an urban designer at Here
LA. He developed concepts, illustrations, maps, and narratives for
multimodal, bicycle, and pedestrian strategic and specific plans at a
scale from county to corridor to site. He trained community members
in first/last mile audit methodology, oversaw station area analysis, and
recommended urban design improvements. In other work experience,
Chad was a design architect intern for the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation’s Active Transportation Division.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
•Glendora Objective Design Standards | Glendora CA
•Orange County Council of Governments Objective Design Standards | Orange
County CA
•Sunnyvale Housing Development Objective Design Standards | Sunnyvale CA
•Downtown Shoreline Vision Plan | Long Beach CA
•Glendora Station Area Plan | Glendora CA
•Artesia Downtown Specific Plan | Artesia CA
•MdR for All Comprehensive Plan | Marina Del Rey CA
•Bristol Street Recreation Corridor Vision Plan | Santa Ana CA
•Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan| Costa Mesa CA
•Chapman Corridor Revitalization Plan | Placentia CA
•Long Beach LGBTQ+ Cultural District Community Outreach | Long Beach CA
•San Bernardino (City) General Plan, Specific Plans, and Downtown Urban
Design | San Bernardino CA
•Wildomar General Plan Update | Wildomar CA
•Daly City Commercial Mixed Use Zone Development | Daly City CA
•South 9th Street Corridor Plan | Stanislaus County CA
•Butte County Upper Ridge Community Plan | Butte County CA
•Cupertino General Plan 2040 | Cupertino CA
•Five Wounds Station Area Plan | San Jose CA
•Fresno Housing Parkway Master Plan | Fresno CA
•Greater Higgins Area Plan | Nevada County CA
•Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Outreach | Hercules CA
EDUCATION
•BS, Landscape Architecture,
California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
•Study Abroad, Santa Chiara Study
Center, Castiglion Fiorentino,
Tuscany, Italy
CERTIFICATIONS
•American Institute of Certified
Planners #35134
AFFILIATIONS
•American Planning Association
Team member since 2022
75
CHAD SO
Associate
cso@placeworks.com
•Hollister General Plan Design Guidelines | Hollister CA
•Livermore General Plan Update | Livermore CA
•Madera Station Relocation Transit Area | Madera CA
•Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan Update | Millbrae CA
•Stockton General Plan Update | Stockton CA
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
Design and Planning
•405 Multimodal Corridor Plan | LA County CA
•Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan | Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton CA
•Brea Connecting the Core Active Transportation Plan | Brea CA
•Crenshaw/LAX Northern Feasibility Study and TOC Analysis | LA County CA
•Downey Pedestrian Plan | Downey CA
•Expo/Crenshaw First/Last Mile Plan | Los Angeles CA
•Glendale Pedestrian Master Plan | Glendale CA
•Golden State District Specific Plan | Burbank CA
•Inglewood First/Last Mile Plan | Inglewood CA
•LA Metro Station Evaluation Program | LA County
•NextGen Bus Study | LA County CA
•North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Urban Design Integration Guide | Los
Angeles CA
•One San Pedro Transformation Plan | San Pedro CA
•Ocean Ave Artist in Residence | Santa Monica CA
•Purple (D Line) Extension First/Last Mile Plan | Los Angeles CA
•Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study | Southern CA
•Transit to Parks Strategic Plan | LA County CA
•Willoughby Streetscape Design Project | West Hollywood CA
Creative Community Outreach
•Climate Talks Box | LA County CA
•East San Gabriel Mobility Action Plan | LA County CA
•Little Tokyo Joint Development Guidelines | Los Angeles CA
•Long Beach Vision Zero | Long Beach CA
•One Arroyo Creative Outreach | Pasadena CA
•Oxnard Sustainable Transportation Plan | Oxnard CA
•Santa Barbara Active Transportation Plan | Santa Barbara County CA
•Uptown Land Use & Neighborhood Strategy | Long Beach CA
76
NICOLE VERMILION
Principal
Nicole combines broad perspective and big-picture thinking with a
good technical grounding to find workable solutions to environmental
constraints. She is a skilled project manager and smoothly guides difficult
and controversial projects to completion. She most often manages CEQA
review for general plans and specific plans, such as general plan EIRs for
the cities of Ontario, Los Alamitos, Corona, and Yucaipa, and the Brea Mall
Mixed Use Project EIR. Nicole’s environmental analyses are accurate, clear,
and thorough, and her grasp of technical considerations and up-to-date
knowledge ensure that each project’s issues, constraints, and community
concerns are carefully managed.
Nicole is also an air quality specialist and an expert on global climate
change as it relates to CEQA analysis. She closely follows the rapid
changes in requirements and the latest information on CEQA thresholds
and analysis methodology. She has performed numerous greenhouse
gas emissions inventories for individual projects as well as citywide
emissions inventories for general plans. Nicole frequently presents at
conferences, including APA’s and AEP’s California state conferences. She
is a beta-tester for the CalEEMod program, and is a member of AEP’s
Climate Change Committee. As a member of AEP’s Climate Change
Committee, Nicole has contributed to white papers addressing GHG
emissions inventories for climate action plans and general plans, post-
2020 GHG thresholds, and Friant Ranch.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
CEQA Projects Managed by Nicole Vermilion
•The Ontario Plan 2050 General Plan (and previous update) | Ontario CA
•Ontario Regional Sports Complex EIR | Ontario CA
•Ontario Ranch Specific Plan EIR | Ontario CA
•Yucca Valley On-Call Environmental Services | Yucca Valley CA
•Colton Safety Element IS/MND | Colton CA
•Agua Mansa Logistics Center Addendum | Colton CA
•Specific Plan EIRs: Brea, Cal State Fullerton/City of Fullerton, Hemet, Yucaipa
•General Plan EIRs: Corona, Los Alamitos, Ontario, Yucca Valley, Yucaipa
•City of Irvine CEQA Manual | Irvine CA
•Brea Mall Mixed-Use Project EIR | Brea CA
•Residential Project EIRs: Anaheim, Brea, Claremont, Mission Viejo
•Irvine Business Complex EIR and GHG Inventory | Irvine CA
Air Quality, GHG, and Energy Analyses
•Brea Mall Mixed-Use Project EIR (for this project, Nicole also managed
the entire CEQA project in addition to leading technical analyses, OCVIBE,
Platinum Triangle in Anaheim, Brea Plaza, Broadway Mixed-Use project in
Redwood City; Serramonte Shopping Center Expansion in Daly City; Fresno El
Paseo Marketplace in Fresno; Golden Triangle Marketplace in Highland; San
Leandro Shoreline Development; Butcher’s Corner in Sunnyvale
EDUCATION
•Master of Urban & Regional
Planning, University of California,
Irvine
•BS with Honors, Ecology &
Evolutionary Biology, University of
California, Santa Cruz
•BA with Honors, Environmental
Studies, University of California,
Santa Cruz
AFFILIATIONS
•American Planning Association
(APA)
•Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
ACTIVITIES
•Climate Change Committee |
California AEP
2023 Certificate of Appreciation
•CalEEMod Beta-Tester
Team member since 2004
77
NICOLE VERMILION
Principal
nvermilion@placeworks.com
•Downtown/Town Center and Civic Center Projects: Norwalk Entertainment
District-Civic Center Specific Plan EIR; Laguna Niguel Town Center; Men’s
Central Jail (Treatment Center) for LA County; Orange County Civic Center;
Downtown Hayward Specific Plan; Atherton Civic Center; Walnut Creek
Downtown Specific Plan; Del Avenue Specific Plan
•Hotel Projects: Anabella Hotel Anaheim; Hyatt Regency Newport Beach;
Courtyard Marriott Glendale; DeAnza and Village Hotels in Cupertino; Hilton
Garden Inns in Walnut Creek and San Jose
•Corridor, TOD, Station Area Specific Plan EIRs: Beach Boulevard, Anaheim;
Valley Corridor, San Bernardino County; Connect Southwest LA TOD and West
Carson TOD, Los Angeles County; Midtown, Long Beach; Millbrae Station,
Millbrae
•Senior Living and Medical Facility Projects: Kaiser Medical Centers in
Anaheim and Irvine; Newport Beach Vivante Senior Living; Torrance
Memorial New Main Tower Project; Del Amo Senior Village; City of Hope
Cancer Research Center Expansion in the cities of Duarte & Irwindale; The
Springs at Bethsaida Senior Living in Tustin
•Industrial Projects: Proposed Rule 2305 Indirect Source Review –
Warehouses Environmental Assessment for SCAQMD; Prologis Warehouse
EIR in Los Angeles; CenterPoint Properties Warehouse at Greenleaf Avenue
in Santa Fe Springs; Ontario Ranch Specific Plan EIR; Agua Mansa Logistics
Center Addendum and Colton Southwest Regional Operations Center IS/
MND in Colton; 12+ warehouse/industrial projects in the City of Industry;
2000 Marina Boulevard Tech Studies - AQ/GHG in San Leandro; Cordes Ranch
Annexation Specific Plan in Tracy; Dixon Northeast Quadrant Specific Plan
Addendum in Dixon; CenterPoint Properties Warehouse in Richmond
•General Plan EIRs: Counties of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, and San
Bernardino and Cities of:
»Clovis
»Cupertino
»El Monte
»Highland
»Industry
»La Habra
»Menlo Park
»Morgan Hill
»Newark
»Newport Beach
»Palm Springs
»Palo Alto
»Pasadena
»Rancho Mirage
»San Clemente
»San Leandro
»San Rafael
»Santa Ana
»Sierra Madre
»Stockton
»Temple City
»Torrance
»Tulare
»Vacaville
»Vallejo
»Westminster
Additional Projects
•City of Industry Climate Action Plan | City of Industry CA
•TIGER II Grant for the San Bernardino International Airport | Highland CA
•Antelope Valley Area Plan EIR | County of Los Angeles CA
•Concord Hills Regional Park EIR | East Bay Regional Parks District CA
•1700 Dell Avenue Office EIR | Campbell CA
•Measure E Bond Program CEQA and Site Assessment Services | Fremont
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
•“Climate Change and Air Quality Workshop – Proposed Cumulative Air Toxics
Thresholds” | 2022 AEP CA State Conference | Yosemite CA
•“A Diversity of Air Quality Thresholds for a Diverse State: Thresholds Concepts
to Reflect Differences in Existing Pollution Burdens” | 2021 AEP CA State
Conference | Long Beach CA (Virtual) “All About the Offsets – Mitigating GHG
Impacts with GHG Credits” | AEP February 2020 | Irvine CA
78
EMMA HAINES
Associate
Emma Haines is a dedicated environmental planner with four years of
experience navigating CEQA and NEPA processes. As a CEQA generalist,
she brings a versatile skill set to a diverse range of projects, including
residential developments, commercial projects, school modernization
efforts, and General Plan updates. She contributes to research, data
analysis, processing, and report writing for various CEQA documents,
such as initial studies, exemptions, addenda, and EIR topical sections.
Emma has established herself as a skilled project manager, adept at
coordinating multidisciplinary teams, overseeing technical analyses,
and ensuring that projects remain on schedule and within budget.
Her project management experience includes mitigated negative
declarations, EIRs, and streamlined approaches such as sustainable
communities environmental assessments (SCEA), Section 15183
compliance checklists, addenda, and opportunity-and-constraints
analyses.
In addition to her professional expertise, Emma serves as a director-
at-large for the California Association of Environmental Professionals
State Board. In this role, she actively supports student outreach and
membership initiatives, fostering connections between emerging
professionals and the environmental planning community.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
Public- and Private-Sector Environmental Services
• Foothill Lofts Mixed-Use Project 15183 Compliance Checklist | Rancho
Cucamonga CA
• Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update EIR | Rancho Cucamonga CA
• Brodin Residential Project IS/ND | Los Angeles CA
• Moorpark General Plan Update and EIR | Moorpark CA
• Norwalk Entertainment District-Civic Center Specific Plan Project| Norwalk CA
• Del Amo Circle Residential Apartments Project SCEA | Torrance CA
• Irvine Animal Care Center and Operations Support Facility Expansion and
Renovation IS/MND | Irvine CA
• Oak Creek Community Park Expansion and Improvements IS/MND | Irvine CA
• Orange County Great Park Phase 2 EIR | Irvine CA
• Imperial County 2021–2029 Housing Element Update IS/MND | Imperial
County CA
• Anaheim General Plan Update EIR | Anaheim CA
• Los Alamitos Town Center Project General Plan EIR Addendum | Los Alamitos CA
• San Bernardino (City) General Plan Update EIR | San Bernardino CA
• The Mercury Project IS/MND | Pico Rivera CA
• Quail Hills Residential Project IS/MND | Menifee CA
EDUCATION
• BS, Environmental Management
and Protection, California
Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo
AFFILIATIONS
• Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
Team member since 2021
79
EMMA HAINES
Associate
ehaines@placeworks.com
• Las Tunas Medical Office Building Project IS/MND Addendum | San Gabriel CA
• Green Tree Mixed-Use Project EIR | Vacaville CA
• 808 Alameda De Las Pulgas Townhome Development EIR | San Carlos CA
• Black Mountain Townhome Development EIR | San Carlos CA
School Facilities Planning CEQA Projects
• Mark Twain School Renovation Project IS/MND, Garden Grove USD | Garden
Grove CA
• Oxford Preparatory Academy Charter School Expansion Project IS/MND |
Mission Viejo CA
• Santa Monica–Malibu MS and HS Campus Master Plan EIR, Santa Monica-
Malibu USD | Malibu CA
• Mission MS Improvement Project IS/MND, Escondido Union ESD | Escondido CA
• Thomas Edison ES Renovation Project NOE, Anaheim ESD | Anaheim CA
• Paul Revere ES Renovation Project NOE, Anaheim ESD | Anaheim CA
• Benito Juarez ES Renovation Project NOE, Anaheim ESD | Anaheim CA
• Orchard Dale ES Modernization Project NOE, East Whittier City ESD |
Unincorporated South Whittier CA
• Surfside Academy Modernization NOE, Oceanside USD | Oceanside CA
• Star View ES Renovation Project NOE, Ocean View ESD | Huntington Beach CA
• Aviara MS NOE, Carlsbad USD | Carlsbad CA
• Bloomington HS Renovation Project NOE, Colton JUSD | Unincorporated
Bloomington CA
• CEQA and Environmental Services for Carlsbad USD | Carlsbad CA
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
• Environmental Professional: Is That the Right Choice for Me?” 2022 AEP State
Conference, Yosemite CA
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY
• Director-at-Large, California Association of Environmental Professionals
AWARDS
• 2020 Ned Rogoway Memorial Scholarship, AEP
80
I William Fulton, FAICP I
With decades of experience, Bill Fulton, FAICP, is
one of America's major thought leaders on land
use, economic development, and urban
development. During his career he has worked on
hundreds of projects for dozens of clients with a
focus on rigorous analysis, accessible work
products, and action-oriented outcomes. In 2009,
he was named one of Planetizen's Top 100 Urban
Thinkers.
In addition to his work at William Fulton Group, Bill
is a Senior Advisor to PFM Management and
Budgeting Consulting, a Fellow at the Terner Center
for Housing I nnovation at UC Berkeley, and a
Professor of Practice in the Department of Urban
Studies and Planning and the Design Lab at the
University of California, San Diego.
In California, Bill has served as. Mayor of Ventura,
California, and Director of Planning and Economic
Development for the City of San Diego. In Texas,
he was Director of the Kinder Institute for Urban
Research at Rice University for eight years. In
Washington, D.C., he served as Vice President of
Policy and Implementation at the advocacy group
Smart Growth America.
Bill is also the author of eight books, including The
Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl {with
Peter Calthorpe) and Guide to Californi a Planning,
the standard urban planning textbook in California
{sixth edition published in 2022 ). His latest
book, Place and Prosperity: H ow Cities Help Us
Conn ect And I nnovate, was published by Island
Press in 2022.
Bill holds master's degrees in Mass Communication
from The American University and urban planning
from UCLA. He is also a trained meeting and
process facilitator.
M.A., Mass Communication, American University
M.A., Urban Planning, UCLA
Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners
WF
81
This page intentionally left blank.
82
Mark is founder and principal of Moorpark, California based
DiCecco Architecture, Inc. (DAI). A native of Los Angeles, he
comes from a family of successful contractors in the housing
industry. He has lived in Moorpark with his wife for over 30 years.
He has 4 children and 6 grandchildren.
Committed to lifelong learning, he has a Doctor of Architecture
from the University of Hawaii and a Bachelor of Architecture
from Cal Poly Pomona. His educational experience also includes
University of Copenhagen and Harvard Graduate School of Design.
His doctoral dissertation proved it possible to develop dense
suburban housing in a sustainable, cost efficient, community-
based model.
He is a licensed architect in four states, NCARB certified, and a
LEED Accredited Professional. He has taught architecture at
Woodbury University and UCLA Extension. He has been a featured
speaker at local housing conferences.
His design experience ranges from playhouses auctioned off for
a cause to 700 acre master planned mixed use developments.
He thrives where the needs of the Client, the Jurisdiction, and the
Community meet, where the environments between the buildings
and the communities they fit in are more important than the
buildings themselves.
This experience represents over forty five years in the design and
construction industry and thirty six years of continuous practice at
DAI.
His volunteer efforts include those to churches, shelters, service
organizations, non-profit homebuilders, and in the local community
with the school district, high school and community college. He
is a Planning Commissioner for the City of Moorpark (from 1998-
2020 and now currently since 2023), and was Chair of Moorpark’s
General Plan Advisory Committee.
When not working or volunteering, he spends as much time
possible with his family in the outdoors of California or competing
on mountain bikes throughout the western United States.
EDUCATION
Doctorate of Architecture Degree 2009
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Bachelor of Architecture Degree 1987
California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona
Architecture and Design Studies Program
(1984-1985) University of Copenhagen,
Denmark
Harvard Graduate School of Design
Executive Education (1999-2006)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of Architects (AIA), member
AIACA Housing Congress
GPAC Chairman (2020-2023)
City of Moorpark, California
Planning Commissioner (1998-2020,2023-present)
City of Moorpark, California
Building Industry Association (BIA), member,
VC Working Group member
Adjunct Faculty:
Woodbury University, (1993-1996),
UCLA Extension (1996-1998)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Accredited Professional
Town Planner, River Park MPC.
Oxnard, California
ARCHITECT REGISTRATIONS
NCARB #50094
California 19697
Nevada 4213
Arizona 46173
Texas 19790
887 Patriot Drive, Suite C, Moorpark, CA 93021
805 552 0088
diceccoarch.com
Dr. Mark DiCecco AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
83
PEOPLE
PROCESS
PRODUCT
Stakeholder
Interviews
Charrettes & Workshops
Mobile Outreach
Developer Roundtables
Research & Analyze Collaborate
Vision
Original Data Files
PLACEWORKS TEAM PROCESS
Envision
PEOPLE
The PlaceWorks Team believes in collaboration and community engagement
every step of the way—from the assessment of current conditions and needs, to
exploration of opportunities for the future, to confirmation of preferred visions,
development plans, and implementation strategies and codes.
The PlaceWorks Team works through multiple methods to include as many people as
possible.
84
Open Houses &
Public Hearings
Websites, Social MediaLocal Stakeholders
Document Review & Strategize Present
Environmental
Clearance Document
The Plan
• Plans
• Maps/Diagrams
• Graphics/Illustrations
• Tables/Charts
• Performance Evaluations
PROCESS
The PlaceWorks Team is effective at completing projects
on time and under budget.
We establish clear procedures and protocols to ensure
that the work and the program address objectives and
expected outcomes and coordinates with concurrent
client initiatives.
PRODUCT
The PlaceWorks Team is dedicated to providing clients
with reliable and effective products. This means that
for deliverable work products we will provide the Client
with electronic files for publications.
85
placeworks.com
PlaceWorks - Los Angeles
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, CA 92707
213.623.1443
Additional Offices
Orange County | Inland Empire | Central Coast | Bay Area | Sacramento
86
May 21, 2025
Doug Spondello AICP
Community Development Director
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Ave
Moorpark CA 93021
Subject: Cost Proposal for PlaceWorks Proposal for Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Update
Consultant Services
Transmitted via Email: dspondello@moorparkca.gov
Dear Mr. Spondello:
Attached is PlaceWorks’ cost proposal to prepare the City of Moorpark’s Downtown Specific Plan Update
followed by standard fee schedules for each of our team members. Of note, we have included cost
estimates for two optional tasks noted as such in the Scope of Work (shown in red text in the budget
spreadsheet). The total proposed cost does not include those optional items. We welcome an
opportunity to discuss those optional items with you and any other changes you might have so that we
can finalize a scope and budget that best fits your needs and resources.
This proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the time of submittal. As a Principal, Alan
Loomis is authorized to bind the team to the contents of this submittal and to negotiate contracts of any
amount on behalf of PlaceWorks. Please contact either or both of us with any questions.
We enthusiastically look forward to your response.
Respectfully submitted,
PLACEWORKS
Alan Loomis AICP | Principal, Urban Design Jonathan Nettler AICP | Associate Principal
Principal-in-Charge Project Manager
213.643.1443 x2101 | aloomis@placeworks.com 213.623.1443 x2139 | jnettler@placeworks.com
87
THE PLACEWORKS TEAM
Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan
COST PROPOSAL
WFG DAI 10%
LOOMIS NETTLER SO CHRISTIE HUGOO VERMILION HAINES
Title Principal Associate
Principal
Associate Associate Planner/
Designer
Principal Associate
Role
Principal-in-
Charge
Project
Manager
Urban Dsn/
Graphic Dsn
Planner Designer CEQA Principal CEQA
Project
Task Hourly Rate:$275 $270 $180 $170 $135 $275 $165 $160
TASK 1. Project Management and Coordiantion
1.1 Project Kick-off Meeting 2 4 6 8 20 $3,790 1,000 1,000 $2,200 $5,990
1.2 Project Management Plan and Schedule 4 8 12 $2,520 $0 $2,520
1.3 Project Management Meetings 12 36 36 84 $19,500 1,000 1,000 $2,200 $21,700
1.4 Monthly Invoicing and Reporting 4 12 24 40 $8,660 $0 $8,660
1.5 Project Close-Out Files 4 4 8 $1,400 $0 $1,400
1.6 REAP Metrics 1 2 4 7 $1,495 $0 $1,495
Task 1. Subtotal 19 58 78 8 8 0 0 0 171 $37,365 $2,200 $2,200 $4,400 $41,765
TASK 2. Public Outreach
2.1 Outreach and Engagement Plan 2 4 8 14 $3,070 $0 $3,070
2.2 Outreach Events and Summary
Community Workshop #1 and Promo 12 18 22 12 76 140 $24,420 2,500 4,500 $7,700 $32,120
Country Days PopUp (Optional)10 10 4 24 $5,040 2,000 $2,200 $7,240
Community Workshop #2 and Promo 16 20 22 76 134 $24,020 2,000 4,000 $6,600 $30,620
Planning Commission/City Council Study Session (Optional)10 12 8 30 $7,430 2,000 $2,200 $9,630
Community Workshop #3 and Promo 8 10 10 36 64 $11,560 2,000 $2,200 $13,760
Summary Reports 3 6 12 12 5 38 $7,025 $0 $7,025
Task 2. Subtotal (without optional tasks)51 80 92 12 204 0 0 5 444 $82,565 $4,950 $11,550 $16,500 $86,595
TASK 3. Specific Plan
3.1 Internal Draft Downtown Specific Plan 18 24 32 40 60 15 189 $34,490 1,500 2,500 $4,400 $38,890
3.2 Environmental Review 6 90 6 102 $17,460 $0 $17,460
3.3 Public Review Draft Plan 12 20 24 32 40 8 136 $25,140 $0 $25,140
3.4 Public Hearing Draft Plan 4 8 8 12 20 8 60 $10,720 $0 $10,720
Task 3. Subtotal 34 52 64 84 120 6 90 37 487 $87,810 $1,650 $2,750 $4,400 $92,210
TASK 4. Public Hearings and Adoption
4.1 Public Hearings 14 20 24 58 $13,330 $0 $13,330
4.2 Adopted Specific Plan and Summary Memo 2 4 8 8 22 $3,700 $0 $3,700
Task 4. Subtotal 14 22 4 32 8 0 0 0 80 $17,030 $0 $0 $0 $17,030
TASK 5. Executive Report
5.1 Executive Summary Report 2 4 12 18 $3,670 $0 $3,670
Task 5. Subtotal 2 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 18 $3,670 $0 $0 $0 $3,670
Labor Hours Total 120 216 238 148 340 6 90 42 1200 $228,440 $8,800 $16,500 $25,300 $241,270
Labor Dollars Total $33,000 $58,320 $42,840 $25,160 $45,900 $1,650 $14,850 $6,720 $228,440
PlaceWorks Percent of Total Labor 10.0%18.0%19.8%12.3%28.3%0.5%7.5%3.5%100.0%$0
Subconsultants Reimbursable Expenses 500.00$ 550$
PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $8,000
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES TOTAL $8,550
GRAND TOTAL (without optional tasks)$249,820
TOTAL
TASK
BUDGET
PlaceWorks
Labor Total
PLACEWORKS
PlaceWorks
Hours
Technical
Editing
Subcons.
Labor Total
(incl. 10% mark-
up)
PLACEWORKS | 5/21/202588
May 21, 2025 | Page 3
FEE SCHEDULES
PlaceWorks – 2025 Standard Fee Schedule
PlaceWorks – Other Direct Costs
89
William Fulton Group Rate Schedule
William Fulton, $275/hour
DiCecco Architecture Rate Schedule
Principal Architect: (Mark Di Cecco AIA): three hundred five dollars ($305.00) per hour.
Senior Technical Staff: one hundred sixty five dollars ($165) per hour.
Technical Staff: one hundred twenty dollars ($120) per hour.
Staff: ninety dollars ($90) per hour.
90