Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 1219 CC REG ITEM 09FITEM DO ACTION. A:p2r MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL TA LrY�W�1Qr -- -'Q AGENDA REPORT LU0 +e. ,3-l� PICL or 14"nfer- -Coc �wlMaube TO: The Honorable City Council_ FROM: Deborah Traffenstedt, Acting Community Development Director '� DI 5-1— Prepared by: John Libiez, Planning Manag� DATE: December 13, 2001 (CC Meeting December 19, 2001) SUBJECT: Consider a General Plan Amendment to Adopt Revised Housing Element 2000 -2005; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02; Applicant: City of Moorpark BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission completed its review of the proposed Housing Element and adopted PC Resolution 2001 -412 on August 27, 2001, recommending that the City Council consider adoption of the revised Housing Element. Commission instructed staff and the Housing Element consultant to complete minor revisions to the draft element consistent with Commission guidance and discussion. Commission further directed staff to cause a copy of the revised element to be forwarded to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requesting a shortened (thirty day) review period of the submitted document in fulfillment of the needed and required second round of review. The original housing element draft was forwarded to HCD for review and extensive comments were returned. Staff and the consultant completed revisions to the original element draft and presented the revised draft to Planning Commission reflecting changes made to address the first round of HCD comments. The Planning Commission in their deliberations and adoption of their Resolution considered the revised draft and have recommended its adoption to Council subject to revisions that were incorporated and forwarded to HCD on October 4, 2001, with a request for thirty -day review. Commission further directed staff to review HCD comments received and to make any necessary corrections to the element to reflect response to the second round of HCD comments. The S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.01.doc y #. r City Council Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Adoption December 19, 2001 Page 2 element as presented to City Council contains those changes in data and narrative content necessary to address HCD concerns. Staff has previously provided City Council with the draft element revised /reviewed by the Planning Commission under separate cover and placed the document in various locations within the community to insure availability of the document for public review. Additionally, the draft element was forwarded to agencies that are involved with housing issues for low - income families and the homeless. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was provided to individuals and agencies that have expressed interest in the consideration of the element. Staff and the Housing Element Consultant (Cotton- Bridges Associates) have discussed and monitored the HCD second review and the consultant has been involved in several discussions and exchanges of data prior to the issuance of the HCD second review letter. HCD identified issues for which clarification was needed to insure that the element satisfies state housing law. Copies of the first and second HCD review letters have been provided for Council consideration. The results of staff and consultant actions reduced the level of comments from five pages to two. The draft dated December 2001, (to be distributed under separate cover) is the final draft of the element and contains all changes as directed by the Planning Commission and as discussed with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development during the second round of review. The initial comments received in the November 29, 2001 HCD Letter stated that HCD found the draft element not in compliance to Article 10.6 of the Government Code with respect to two issues only. Those issues are site provision and removal of government constraints. The items in question were discussed with HCD on December 7 and December 10, 2001. Following staff and consultant discussion with HCD on December 7, additional explanatory materials were forwarded for HCD consideration. In a teleconference with the Deputy Director of HCD (DDHCD), Cathy Creswell, the HCD element reviewer, Paul McDougall, the Acting Community Development Director, Planning Manager and CBA staff, it was determined that minor additional explanation related to sites progress and timing were needed. The DDHCD stated that HCD would be satisfied that the element would meet the requirements of law and she would issue a letter of compliance on or about December 13, 2001, provided some additional language edits were made to that portion of the work program related to design S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.0l.doc City Council Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Adoption December 19, 2001 Page 3 guidelines and standards. The requested changes were made, FAX copies provided to the state by the consultant and the draft element modified to include them. By way of memorializing those review comments, the following is offered for Council information. Initial comment received is abbreviated and the final determination of staff and HCD reflected. A. Housing Programs 1. Adequate sites issue: a. "The element should clarify the current status of these projects (six cited projects) and indicate when action is likely to be taken." Staff and the consultant provided a synopsis of the status from the City Monthly Report on each of the referenced projects on December 5, 2001. It should be noted that the HCD comments state that "if developed within the current planning period Moorpark would have sufficient sites to accommodate its regional share need ". This latter comment was discussed and Mr. McDougall, the HCD reviewer, agreed on December 7th that he believed that this was the case from his perspective. Discussion with the DDHCD on December 10 determined that with some amplification language regarding timing of re- zoning of property she would consider this issue satisfied and that provision of adequate sites would then be demonstrated. Those changes in text. were added to the element. b. "if the pending projects are not approved as proposed, then the City should revise the element's adequate sites program (Program 3) to commit to rezone sites early in the planning period" The current draft element establishes that the intent in achieving this goal is to reevaluate site provision and adequacy by the end of 2002. Should a. deficit exist, rezoning action of identified /selected sites would be initiated, and, subject to requirements, be achieved by mid -2003. Given the time needed for legal and processing actions, it is doubtful that the rezoning could actually occur before that time. Staff advised the DDHCD that committing to the mid -2003 period is realistic since the element will have been adopted at the close of 2001 or first of 2002, in process projects will have received determinations and affordability criteria and the balance of any remaining projects S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.01.doc P- City Council General Plan December 19, Page 4 Agenda Report Housing Element Adoption 2001 would have their affordability mix 2002. The DDHCD stated that if language stating that the City would a proposed /listed project fell out element, HCD would be satisfied. Th into the element. defined before the end of the element contained some pursue redesignation even if and so state that in the at language was incorporated C. "The element should also demonstrate that rezoning lands to a maximum density of 17 units per acre is a sufficient density to accommodate the development of units affordable to lower- income households. Staff and consultant noted that the city has been able to achieve adequate unit commitments from projects with less than 17 units per acre density. It was noted that additional density has been requested in recent submittals and has been recommended during consideration in order to meet affordable housing goals. Mr. McDougall acknowledged that the draft element does demonstrate that fact. He did express that HCD did prefer to see higher densities pursued. Staff, the Affordable Housing and Community Development Committee and City Council have shared discussion on this issue and over the more recent project proposal discussions have been amenable to increased density in projects that propose housing for low and very low income units or special category needs such as seniors. HCD Deputy Director stated that they desired greater densities but agreed they need to work with cities within their adopted planning framework. She agreed that if the element was revised to state the city's willingness to pursue redesignation at the high or very high range with fifteen (15) or more units per acre HCD would consider that matter satisfied. The element contains such language. d. "an inclusionary program does not address adequate sites requirement." Staff and the consultant did not completely agree with HCD in this comment. While in a literal sense, the inclusionary policy will not provide a physical site, the policy clearly identifies the commitment expected of project proponents when an identified site is included within a request for development. It is clearly intended that the inclusionary formulae used in redevelopment areas (15 %) and non - redevelopment areas (10 %) serve as the minimum level of affordability to be achieved. Staff advised HCD that it is the case that greater commitments S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.0l.doc City Council Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Adoption December 19, 2001 Page 5 are generally achieved and that the city track record in this area is evident. This item was disposed of through the revisions to the program cited above and the DDHCD concurred this is not an issue anymore. 2. Removal of Government constraints: The HCD reviewer stated that the RPD process appeared to inhibit development of affordable housing by instituting an additional level of review and cost which reduces financial ability of an applicant to provide units at a more favorable affordability rate. This concern was raised on the basis of one non - profit housing development sponsor comments /complaint. Staff and consultant shared with the reviewer that the RPD process is clearly defined by the Municipal Code and is discussed with every applicant for five or more units. Staff explained that the practical aspect of the City RPD process is that design review standards and guidelines are consolidated within the concurrent processing procedures rather than an elongated more traditionally linear process taken a step at a time. The resulting conclusion is approval of all entitlement applications in an abbreviated period. The density bonus provisions of the Municipal Code (Chapter 17.64) permit a reduction of up to 20% of the RPD architectural design requirements. After discussion of the design review process and the anticipated change from large parcel development to more in -fill style development as the community builds out, the reviewer concurred that a simple language change would be acceptable for the design review program. It was agreed by the reviewer, DDHCD, consultant and staff that the language in program eighteen would be revised to reflect development of guidelines as well as standards for design review by the end of 2003 and to make the section language clearer. That change has been incorporated to the draft before the Council and was understood by all parties to satisfy the review comments. Upon completion of the conversation with Ms. Creswell on December 10, 2001, it was determined that the element as verbally agreed to by staff and HCD and would satisfy state housing law and could be adopted and would receive HCD approval /certification. S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan 1z Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.0l.doc City Council Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Adoption December 19, 2001 Page 6 Based upon the final teleconference of December 10, 2001, it was mutually agreed that the revisions discussed would conclude in a Housing Element consistent with current Housing law. Staff has requested that the Deputy Director HCD supply a letter to that effect since the staff report and materials for this hearing were being prepared. Ms. Creswell agreed that upon review of the final consultant wording FAXed to her on December 10, she would provide such a letter by FAX on or about December 13, 2001. The HCD letter dated December 13, 2001, is attached. Should Council amend the document further, those changes must be referred to HCD for their review and concurrence. City Council has before it a Resolution recommending adoption of the Draft Housing Element dated December 2001. The element was provided under separate cover. Staff is recommending adoption of the December 2001 draft Housing Element, which incorporates Planning Commission and HCD recommended revisions as discussed. Attached to this staff report is a Negative Declaration as determined to comply with CEQA, that was reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission as suitable for Council adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing. 2. Adopt the Negative Declaration for the Housing Element. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2001- adopting a Revised Housing Element. Attachments: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution No. 3. Planning Commission Resolution PC- 2001 -412 without attachment. 4. Previous Planning Commission Staff reports without attachments. 5. State Department of Housing and Community Development Department letter dated November 29, 2001. 6. State Department of Housing and Community Development Department letter dated December 13, 2001. S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan _ _> Elements\ CCStaffRptHsngElementl2 .19.01.doc CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of a revised Housing Element 1. Entitlement: General Plan Amendment 2000 -02: Housing Element 2000 -2005 2. Applicant: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 Attention: John Libiez, Planning Manager /Advanced 3. Proposal: Amend the City General Plan by adoption of a revised Housing Element 4. Location: The project will affect property within the City of Moorpark 5. Responsible Agencies: None. II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study, it has been determined that this project would not have a significant effect upon the environment. III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Public Notice: Publication of a Notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area. 2. Document Posting Period: 11/01/2000 - 11/30/2000 Initially Prepared on: October 24, 2000. Prepared by: John kibief, Planning Manager /Advanced October 24, 2000 ATTACHMENT �. INITIAL STUDY CHECK LIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR AESTHETICS Potentiall Less than Less No Impact y Signi£ican than Significan t Signific t With ant Impact Mitigation Incorporat ion a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ 1� v ❑ a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ a v Xto, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing F1 El a X v visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ F1 v X ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique El Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) , as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ 1:1 El X Tr agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ v environment which, due to their 1� location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project? a) Conflict with or obstruct F1 ❑ v implementation of the applicable air L� quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ v ❑ contribute substantially to an existing 1� or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable ❑ ❑ El v net increase of any criteria pollutant L1 for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to E] ❑ v X ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable pdors 1:1 ❑ El v affecting a substantial number of L� people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, r-1 El El v either directly or through habitat L� modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc.:f,'," or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ movement of any native migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 107 �J C x X e) Conflict with any local policies ❑ F1 ❑ v or ordinances protecting biological 1� resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ x adopted Habitat conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ X in the significance of a historical El resource as defined in §15064.5? M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:. ❑ ❑ X El ❑ x ❑ ❑ x a) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ ❑ X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, ❑ ❑ ❑ X as delineated on the most recent Aiquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ X ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? F1 X F1 F1 iv) Landslides? E X n b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss topsoil? ❑ ❑ X ❑ of c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ X ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK. LISThsnge12000.doc collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as F] X El El defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or X alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to public or the environment thr reasonably foreseeable upset accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into environment? the ough ❑ ❑ ❑ X and the the c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ F] X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of . an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ X included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ E] X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? o 00 M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc f) For a project within the vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response plan or evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ El X El risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ El ❑ or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table levels (e.g. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on, or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing El r_1 ❑ X drainage pattern of the site or area, 0 0 M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water E] El X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade El ❑ water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ x ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ X area structures which would impede or y'Y =' redirect flood flows? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ El r-1 X mudflow? j) Expose people or structures to a ❑ X ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ El ❑ X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land ❑ El El X use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any Habitat ❑ 1:1 El X Conservation Plan [HCP] or Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP)? MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability ❑ ❑ El x of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability ❑ F] ❑ X of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons.to or generation ❑ ❑ X ❑ '.- of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation ❑ F1 ❑ X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ X El noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic r_1 El X El in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an E] ❑ ❑ X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc�' airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity El ❑ El X of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth ❑ ❑ El an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) . Displace substantial numbers of ❑ 1:1 El X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of 1:1 El El X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in ❑ El adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc �. Fire protection? F-1 El X El Police protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ X Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ x ❑ RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use ❑ X El existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ 1:1 El X recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might s: have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which ❑ ❑ ❑ X is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or 1:1 E] X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic El a ❑ X patterns, including M:\ 3Libiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ F] X to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency El r-1 El X access? f)Result in adequate parking capacity? ❑ g) Conflict with adopted plans, or programs alternative transportation turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: policies, E] supporting (e.g., bus a) Exceed wastewater treatment . r-1 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the ❑ construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the ❑ construction of new storm water drainage facilities or, expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? FE-EFE-1 X X X d) Have sufficient water supplies F] E] F] X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc e) Result in a determination by the ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE eotentiall Y Significan t Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of„other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? FM 07 0-0907M Less than Less No Impact Significan than t Signi£ic With ant Mitigation Incorporat ion ❑ X ❑ c) Does the project have environmental ❑ El effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? M:\ JLibiez \M \CEQA \INITIALSTUDYCHECK LISThsnge12000.doc CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMENTS RELATED TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST HOUSING ELEMENT 2000 -2005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project consists of the review and consideration for adoption of a revision to the City General Plan Housing Element consistent with requirements of Article 10.6 Section 65580 through 65589.8 of the Government Code of the State of California. Local jurisdictions are required by law to revise local housing elements every five years. The proposed element proposes policies and strategies to enable the City to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. It defines the community's fair -share of the regional housing needs and suggests measures which may be taken to achieve the target needs analysis. CHECKLIST RESPONSES: Aesthetics: a. /d. The housing element will allow through identified sites potential for visual resource interference. However, the Land Use and Open Space Elements provide mechanisms to reduce impacts to visual resources of the community through site analysis and mitigation such as ridgeline protection. Development of new housing units will cumulatively add to the potential for light and glare. The City recently adopted lighting design and construction standards that aid to control unwanted or errant lighting and has subjected residential planned developments to those criteria. Agricultural Resources: No prime or regionally significant agricultural lands are affected as all housing development sites exist within the urban limits of the city. Air Quality: b. /d. Development of some housing units may occur on land that lies in proximity to freeway and highways serving the city thereby potentially exposing some sites to greater levels of pollution than others. Development of housing may contribute incrementally to increases in basin air quality degradation, however the need for adequate housing and significance of this need state wide provides sufficient offset to the incremental cumulative effects. M:\ JLibiez\ M\ CEQA\ HsngElementInitialStudyComment .doc Initial Study Comments Housing Element 2000 -2005 Page 2 Biological Resources: b. Development of housing stock within identified undisturbed areas of the community places pressure upon biological resources. The city's development review process incorporates requirements to evaluate species and resource issues such that resulting impacts be less than significant. Cultural Resources: Application processing and review procedures provide for the identification and mitigation of potential impacts for local /regionally significant resources. No impacts are anticipated. Geology and Soils: a, b, c, d. Southern California and the Simi Valley area are active seismic areas. The community contains active faulting such as the Santa Rosa fault and a variety of non - active fault areas identified by geotechnical studies. Areas susceptible to land slides, liquefaction, erosion, and expansive soils have been identified and are known to exist within this region. The city requires extensive geotechnical studies and analysis to insure projects are not subject to these impacts or that these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: h. Portions of the city contain barrancas and steep slopes which have extensive stands of natural riparian and scrub communities. These interface with developed or developing housing locations. Developments are reviewed by fire protection personnel and conditions to mitigate potentially significant impacts are provided to each development project. Hydrology and Water Quality: g, j. Several developable properties suitable for housing lie within the 100 year storm flood area. The Wood Ranch Reservoir located in the hills within the City of Simi Valley has been identified as presenting a potential for dam inundation hazard to property down stream including some of the Moorpark housing areas. Periodic inspections and reports are required to insure the structural integrity and the risk of complete failure is low to nil. There can be no mitigation for a cataclysmic event. Land Use and Planning: The housing element works in consort with the land use element to identify suitable sites for housing development. The city has provided sufficient lands in various categories and Initial Study Comments Housing Element 2000 -2005 Page 3 densities to accommodate a diversity of housing. No impacts are anticipated. Mineral Resources: No mineral resources existing within the city are developable without creating severe impacts to established neighborhoods or developing residential site. Regional mining is occurring within the county adjacent to the city and provides needs to the building /construction industries. No impacts. Noise: a, c, d. Some future housing locations exist in close proximity to regional highways and may be subject to noise intrusion. The city requires acoustical studies and siting determinations which minimize exposures. Construction of housing results in short term increases to noise levels in areas of the community above the ambient levels that may exist. Enforcement of the community noise element and ordinance provide mitigation to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Population and Housing: a. The purpose of the housing element is to propose strategies for the development of housing to serve the various community income levels. This occurs through complementary interaction of the land use element and the community zoning code and building codes. As a result increase in population will occur. The general plan build out capacity considerations insure that this growth is balanced to the ability to provide services. Public Services: a. Production of the potential housing units prescribed by the housing element could have an effect on the provision of services. The city carefully considers the ability of the service providers to meet the expectations of the proposed development and requires that service providers advise willingness and ability ;to serve as well as provide conditions to insure that the services can be delivered adequately. Recreation: a. The city maintains an active parks development and planning function that considers the need for new facilities, expansion of facilities or the need for off - setting private facilities to insure recreational experiences for all citizens. „� '7� ` Initial Study Comments Housing Element 2000 -2005 Page 4 Transportation /Traffic: No impacts directly related to the adoption of the housing element will occur. Utilities and Service Systems: Currently regional service providers and utility companies have indicated that the general plan capacity for development can be met. No impacts are anticipated. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. While potential exists to have proposals for housing upon property which may contains species of special interest sufficient procedural requirements are in place to assure all sites are adequately surveyed and mitigation requirements adopted to reduce possible impacts to less than significant. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on December 19, 2001, regarding consideration of an update to the Housing Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan; and WHEREAS, at the meeting of December 19, 2001 the City Council of the City of Moorpark opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, after review and consideration of all testimony, the information contained in the staff report, pertinent materials from Planning Commission meetings, and Planning Commission Resolution PC- 2001 -412 making a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of said element, the City Council reached its decision. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby determines that the Revision to the Housing Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan does not have the potential to create a significant effect upon -the environment, and that a Negative Declaration in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) may be issued, pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Updated Housing Element of the Moorpark General Plan, attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference), based upon the following findings: A. The Updated Housing Element establishes goals, policies and implementation strategies that address the provisions of adequate, safe, and decent housing for all economic segments of the community. ATTACHMENT 2 S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \Housing Element \cc - 011219 Housing Ele reso.doc Resolution No. 2001 - Page 2 B. The Updated Housing Element satisfies and is consistent with provisions for Housing Elements as contained within Article 10.6 of the Government Code regulating requirements for Housing Elements. C. The Updated Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and all of its elements. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2001. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Exhibit "A" 2000 -2005 Housing Element of the Moorpark General Plan N �a S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \Housing Element \cc - 011219 Housing Ele reso.doc RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2001 -412 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings /workshops were conducted on November 13 and 27, 2000, June 25 and August 27, 2001, regarding consideration of a revision to the Housing Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -02); and WHEREAS, at each of the above - referenced meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission, public testimony was received from all those wishing to testify, and continued to be received at the August 27, 2001, meeting at which time the Planning Commission closed the pubic hearing; and WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff reports of record, along with testimony received on November 13 and 27, 2000, June 25 and August 27, 2001, the Planning Commission closed said hearing on August 27, 2001, and made a recommendation to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission hereby determines that the revision to the Housing Element for 2000- 2005, dated July 2001, of the City of Moorpark General Plan does not have the potential to create a significant effect upon the environment and that a Negative Declaration in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) may be issued, pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council the approval of the Revised Housing Element for 2000 - 2005, dated July 2001, of the Moorpark General Plan (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference) based upon the following findings: A. The Revised Housing Element establishes goals, policies and objectives /programs that address the provision of adequate, safe, and decent housing for ATTACHMENT 3 S: \Community Developme ;.doc Planning Commission Resolution PC- 2001 -412 Recommending Adoption of Housing Element Page 2 all economic segments of the community. B. The Revised Housing Element satisfies and is consistent with provisions for Housing Elements as contained within Article 10.6 of the Government Code regulating requirements for Housing Elements. C. The Revised Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and all of its Elements. THE ACTION WITH THE FOREGOING DIRECTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners DiCecco, Haller and Landis, Vice Chair Otto and Chair Parvin Noes: Abstaining: Absent: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th, DAY OF August, 2001. 'Janice Parvin, Chair ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt . Acting Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A: Housing Element for 2000 -2005, dated July 2001, of the Moorpark General Plan S: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 412 GPA 2001 -02 HOUSING.doc " `' TO: FROM: DATE: ITEM CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Planning Commission John Libiez, Planning Manage3�,_4/---, November 6, 2000 (PC meeting November 13, 2000) 13. l000 - _x1127 ZXX.cc_ SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment to Adopt Revised Housing Element 2000; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02; Applicant: City of Moorpark BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Legislative Background California Government Code, Article 5, Section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. Section 65302 et. seq. defines the content of the comprehensive community general plan. Article 10.6, Section 65580 et seq. establishes the content and purposes of the housing element. Element History The Moorpark General Plan Housing Element was first adopted by the City Council June 2, 1986. On January 7, 1989, City Council adopted the first update to the element as required by State Planning Law. State law has required that housing elements be updated at least every five years. The law also requires that the update address regional housing needs as established by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Regional Planning Agency, The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Communities were exempted from performing updates during 1994 and subsequent years. The State Legislature approved legislation to extend the due date for element revisions until December 31, 2000, for the SCAG region. ATTACHMENT 4 M:\JLibiez\M\GenP1an P� Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Safety Element Revision November 13, 2000 Page 2 Element Administration In early 1999, staff developed a work program target of revising all older elements of the General Plan during the 2000/2001 budget period. The OSCAR Element was the first to receive extensive rewrite and public review, and is currently under final editing in order to be presented at public hearing before the Planning Commission in January /February. OSCAR has been presented at one combined workshop before the Planning Commission /Parks and Recreation Commission and has had one formal public hearing before the Parks and Recreation Commission. In- June, 1999, staff issued a Request for Proposals to prospective consulting firms qualified to perform General Plan element updates. Assistance was solicited to update the Housing Element and the Safety Element. Cotton /Beland Associates, Inc. (CBA) of Pasadena, Ca. was selected as the consultant to perform the updates to the two elements and were awarded a contract in September, 1999, with a revised contract and start date subsequently agreed to in February, 2000. Element Discussion Staff has previously provided the element to the Planning Commission under separate cover. Copies were also transmitted to the Moorpark Library, Moorpark College Library, U.S. Post Office and City Hall Public counter for availability of public access and review. The proposed element consists of five (5) chapters as follows: 1. Introduction: Provides a setting for the community and discusses the element with regards to state policy and requirements, data sources and public participation. 2. Housing Needs Assessment: This chapter considers demographic characteristics of the community, the regional housing needs allocation [fair share of regional housing] , employment relationships, and special needs groups. The chapter also discusses housing stock characteristics, affordability, economics and overcrowding issues on housing. 3. Housing Constraints: Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Safety Element Revision November 13, 2000 Page 3 Defines and briefly discusses the constraints to housing which may affect the community. Market issues, government constraints and environmental constraints are considered. 4. Housing Resources: This segment of the element considers availability of housing sites, current development and its relationship to the regional share, credits by income level toward meeting the RHNA, and considers financial and administrative resources to meet or promote housing goals. 5. Housing Plan: The housing plan chapter discusses past accomplishments at compliance with the regional allocation, sets forth the housing goals and policies for the five year period (2000- 2005), and incorporates strategies (programs) for providing housing during the plan period. Commission's focus for public hearing review of the document should be to consider consistency of the element to general plan law requirements, determine the adequacy of the document for use and administration of the general plan, and to recommend changes, revisions, deletions or additions to the text that the commission believes necessary and relevant to provide direction for decisions related to provision of housing within Moorpark. Housing Considerations There are several characteristics related to housing that should be highlighted and maintained in focus during housing need discussions that may be expected to occur during the hearing process. These are summarized in bullet points below. 4% of the city population is 65 years of age or older. The largest single housing need group is the 25 -44 age group (43 %) . .74% of the population occupations are professional and technical. 80% of all units are owner occupied. 1% of the city population is classed as farm workers. Current residential housing projects account for 3,098 units /262% of the City's RHNA. _I q - . Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Safety Element Revision November 13, 2000 Page 4 Site inventory (those requiring zone change or density increases)over and above existing residential zoned properties has identified potential for 1,184 units. The city has a history of permitting rezoning from commercial and industrial land use designations to accommodate affordable housing. The city has a current inclusionary policy that requires 150 of all residential units developed in a redevelopment area to be provided for affordability concerns and requires loo in all residential projects outside redevelopment areas. The city provides for density bonuses in order to promote affordable housing. The current General Plan Land Use Element allows density computation on the basis of gross acres. Hearing Format The following procedure is recommended to assist the Planning Commission in achieving the goals of this hearing. HEARING PROCEDURE: 1. Open Public Hearing and receive oral report from Staff and the General Plan consultant. 2. Planning Commission questions of staff and consultant. 3. Receive oral comments /testimony from agencies and the public present. 4. Acknowledgement of any written comments received prior to hearing. (Staff will verbally identify source and date of these responses.) 5. Provide Staff and consultant direction regarding finalization of the Housing Element and any additional information or data that the Commission may need to help it reach a determination /recommendation on the Element. 6. Continue public hearing [open] to November 27, 2000. Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Safety Element Revision November 13, 2000 Page 5 STAFF RECOrMNDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing; accept public testimony; 2. Direct Staff and the consultant to prepare any revisions, to the Housing Element that the Planning Commission deems necessary; 3. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution of the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the Revised Housing Element to the City Council; 4. Continue the open public hearing to November 27, 2000. Attachment: 1. California Government Code Excerpt - Article 10.6 COPY CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Libiez, Planning Manager DATE: November 20, 2000 (PC meeting 11/27/2000) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2000 -02 to Adopt an Updated Housing Element 2000; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02; Applicant: City of Moorpark. (Continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of 11/13/2000, public hearing open.) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission received and discussed this Draft Element at the November 13 meeting and continued the discussion and public hearing to this date. The continuance was needed to allow sufficient time for staff to receive suggested revisions /comments from the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) . Comments were received from the Department of Housing and Community Development on November 20, 2000 and Staff and the consultant are revising the Draft Element. It is now anticipated that changes to the element will not be completed until the first week of December 2000, which will then be returned to HCD. As HCD frequently will fine tune review of elements with the jurisdiction prior to final adoption the consultant and staff see this process continuing into the new year. In reviewing HCD's written comments, many issues were noted to be of a policy nature that will require development of programs and processes subject to HCD review and comment they find the Element in compliance with Housing Element guidelines. In addition to written comments received from HCD, staff and the consultant conducted a lengthy telephone conference with the assigned reviewer at HCD to clarify comments and seek direction S: \Community Development \Everyone \General Plan Elements \Housing Element \pc 001127 Housing Element 2000 stf rpt.doc ATTACHMENTB a F- Planning Commission General Plan Housing Element November 20, 2000 Page 2 to move toward compliance. Significant revisions to the Draft Element must be prepared by the consultant to reflect agreement between HCD and staff on ways to convey the requisite information for discussed concerns. At the November 13 meeting Commission directed staff to return this matter for further discussion and hearing. Commission also requested that staff prepare the necessary resolution to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and the Housing Element. For reasons noted above, these materials have not been provided for consideration at this meeting, but upon conclusion of the edit process will be rescheduled for Commission action. This will also allow staff time to perform further outreach to affected organizations developing housing or related services related to the element. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept public testimony; 2. Continue consideration of the Draft Housing Element indefinitely off calendar and direct staff to re- advertise this matter when the revised documents are ready for consideration. 0 S 8 t L t CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: John Libiez, Planning Manag' DATE: June 18, 2001(PC meeting of June 25, 2001) VA" `IW SUBJECT: Consider a General Plan Amendment to Adopt Draft June 2001 Revised Housing Element 2000 -2005; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02; Applicant: City of Moorpark (Continued from 11/27/00 public hearing open.) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Legislative Background California Government Code, Article 5, Section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. Section 65302 et. seq. defines the content of the comprehensive community general plan. Article 10.6, Section 65580 et. seq. establishes the content and purposes of the housing element. Element History The Moorpark General Plan Housing Element was first adopted by the City Council on June 2, 1986. On October 18, 1989, City Council adopted the first update to the element as required by State Planning Law. Element Discussion Staff has previously provided this draft element to the Planning Commission under separate cover and has placed it in various locations within the community to insure availability of the document for public review. The Planning Commission received and discussed the draft element at the November 13, 2000, meeting and continued the discussion SACommunity DevelopmentEveryone\General Plan Elements\Housing Elementpc- 010625 Housing Ele stfrptdoc dew Planning Commission General Plan Housing Element Revision June 18, 2001 Page 2 and public review, pending corrections and follow -up between staff, the consultant, and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) . The continuance has allowed staff and the consultant to receive suggested revisions /comments from HCD and prepare appropriate responses or revisions. The consultant, to reflect the concerns provided by HCD, has revised the draft element. It is anticipated that additional minor changes will occur prior to the City Council adoption, as HCD frequently requires minor adjustments during second levels of review and prior to final adoption. The draft element as attached contains substantial editing and a partial rewrite to some chapters. Briefly, changes have been indicated through underlined text, the use of (Revised) or New where large portions have been amended. Staff and the consultant believe that the issues raised by HCD are addressed in the new draft. Staff will facilitate the presentation and discussion of the changes since the first draft was prepared and distributed. At the November 13, 2000, meeting the Commission continued this item to November 27, 2001, and at that meeting recommended to continue the Housing Element off calendar pending response and consideration from the State Department of Housing and Community Development review and comments and hearing at a subsequent date. The Commission also requested that staff prepare the necessary resolution to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and the Housing Element. Since substantial changes have been made to the document, staff believes it is best to consider these amendments through a workshop, and then follow that review with a re- advertised public hearing in July or August. All required CEQA documentation would be considered along with the final draft element at that time. The Commission may wish to provide and by consensus direct a course of and consideration. Public comment discretion of the Commission. This as a public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Continue open public hearing; 2. Receive public comments; verbal or written comment, action for future scheduling should be accepted at the item has not been re- noticed ' J Planning Commission General Plan Housing Element Revision June 18, 2001 Page 3 3. Continue matter to August 13, 2001 and re- advertise the matter for public hearing. Attachments: A Draft June 2001 Moorpark 2000 -2005 Housing Element B Planning Commission Staff Reports dated 11/20/00 and 11/6/00, Draft September 2000 Moorpark 2000 -2005 Housing Element �� CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Wayne Loftus, Director of Community DevelopmentG% Prepared by: John Libiez, Planning Manager DATE: August 21, 2001, (PC meeting August 27,. 2001) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment to Adopt Revised Housing Element 2000 -2005; General Plan Amendment 2000 -02; Applicant: City of Moorpark BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Legislative Background California Government Code, Article 5, Section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. Section 65302 et. seq. defines the content of the comprehensive community general plan. Article 10.6, Section 65580 et. seq. establishes the content and purposes of the Housing Element. Element History The Moorpark General Plan Housing Element was first adopted by the City Council on June 2, 1986. On January 7, 1989, City Council adopted the first update to the element as required by State Planning Law. Element Discussion Staff has previously provided this Draft Element to the Planning Commission under separate 'cover and has placed it in various locations within the community to insure availability of the document for public review. Additionally, the Draft Element has S: \Community Development \Everyone \In.Process Documents \Housing Element Stf Rpt 82701 PC.d1.82101.doc.� FILE COPY Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Revision August 27, 2001 Page 2 been forwarded to other governmental and public service agencies that are involved with housing issues, including those related to low income families and homelessness. The Planning Commission received and discussed the Draft Element at the November 13, 2000, meeting and continued the discussion and public review, pending corrections and follow -up between staff, the consultant, and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) . The continuance has allowed staff and the consultant to receive suggested revisions /comments from HCD and prepare appropriate responses or revisions. The consultant, to reflect the concerns provided by HCD, has revised the Draft Element. It is anticipated that additional minor changes to the element will occur prior to the City Council adoption, as HCD frequently requires minor adjustments during second levels of review and prior to final adoption. The attached Draft Element contains substantial editing and a partial rewrite to some chapters. Changes have been indicated through underlined text and the use of (Revised) or New, where large portions have been amended. Staff and the consultant believe that the issues raised by HCD are adequately and appropriately addressed in the revised draft, dated July 2001. Staff will present an overview and discussion at the Commission hearing of the changes since the first draft was prepared and distributed. The consultant will be present to respond to Commission's questions and to address some of the issues and the work plan technical items. At the previous meeting Commission directed staff to return th -is matter for further discussion and hearing. Commission also requested that staff prepare the necessary resolution to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and the Housing Element. Substantial changes have been made to the document that address previously identified issues and HCD comments. All required CEQA documentation should be considered prior to a consideration of the Final Draft Element. All comments. received during the hearing process will be documented similar to the way in which comments on environmental documents are received and responses prepared. Public hearing testimony along with the expanded minutes and specific Commission comments and recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their hearing. Staff and S: \Community Development \Everyone \In Process Documents \Housing Element stf ^Ai Rpt 82701 PC.d1.82101.doc Planning Commission Agenda Report General Plan Housing Element Revision August 27, 2001 Page 3 consultant have developed a revised work plan effort that would allow the Commission recommended Draft Element and comments, as appropriate, to be forwarded to HCD following the completion of the Planning Commission hearing with a request for an abbreviated review period (30 days vs. 60 days). The Element will tentatively be set for City Council hearing in October and adoption in December 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing; receive report from staff and consultant; receive public comment and testimony; close public hearing. 2. Consider Negative Declaration. 3. Adopt Resolution PC -2001- recommending adoption of a Revised Housing Element to the Moorpark General Plan. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution: PC -2001- with exhibit. 2. Negative Declaration S: \Community Development \Everyone \In Process Documents \Housing Element Stf Rpt 82701 PC.d2.82101.doc STA;_E_Q1,CAL1FORNIA - BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAMS Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development •�o�siNC qua. 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 0 m R ■,■ P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053 r��Y_A www.hcd.ca.gov (916) 323 -3176 FAX: (916) 327 -2643 November 29, 2001 Dear Mr. Loftus: PF: R °ldfew of the City of Moorpark's Revised Draft Housing �+,�lement Thank you for submitting the City of Moorpark's revised draft housing element, initially received for our review on October 5, 2001, together with additional revisions received on November 8, 2001 and November 27, 2001. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Hoffman, the City's consultant, in November 2001, assisted our review. This letter and Appendix summarize the telephone conversations with Mr. Hoffinan. The current draft element addresses most of the statutory requirements described in our November 16, 2000 review. Specifically, the element now includes an expanded analysis of the land inventory, a discussion of the City's infrastructure capacity and an expanded discussion of the City's efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. However, the element still does not identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards sufficient to accommodate the City's remaining share of the regional housing need for lower - income households, and does not demonstrate that the City's design review standards do not act as a constraint to housing development. Therefore the element will need to be amended to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The required revisions are discussed in detail in the enclosed Appendix. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate the courtesy and assistance of Mr. Hoffinan during the course of our review. We are willing to meet in Moorpark or otherwise provide additional assistance to aid the City in revising its housing element to comply with State law. Please feel free to contact Paul Mc Dougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 -7995. ATTACHMENT 5 _._ A Mr. Wayne Loftus, Director City of Moorpark Community Development Department :b; 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Dear Mr. Loftus: PF: R °ldfew of the City of Moorpark's Revised Draft Housing �+,�lement Thank you for submitting the City of Moorpark's revised draft housing element, initially received for our review on October 5, 2001, together with additional revisions received on November 8, 2001 and November 27, 2001. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Hoffman, the City's consultant, in November 2001, assisted our review. This letter and Appendix summarize the telephone conversations with Mr. Hoffinan. The current draft element addresses most of the statutory requirements described in our November 16, 2000 review. Specifically, the element now includes an expanded analysis of the land inventory, a discussion of the City's infrastructure capacity and an expanded discussion of the City's efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. However, the element still does not identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards sufficient to accommodate the City's remaining share of the regional housing need for lower - income households, and does not demonstrate that the City's design review standards do not act as a constraint to housing development. Therefore the element will need to be amended to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The required revisions are discussed in detail in the enclosed Appendix. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate the courtesy and assistance of Mr. Hoffinan during the course of our review. We are willing to meet in Moorpark or otherwise provide additional assistance to aid the City in revising its housing element to comply with State law. Please feel free to contact Paul Mc Dougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 -7995. ATTACHMENT 5 _._ A Mr. Wayne Loftus, Director Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Cathy E. Cr well Deputy Director Enclosures cc: Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Dara Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Ruben Duran, Law Firm of Neufield, Jaffe & Levin Mark Hoffman, Cotton Bridges Associates Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments Karen Warner, Cotton Bridges & Associates David Booher, California Housing Council Jonathan Lehrer - Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company Karen Flock, Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation d "� APPENDIX City of Moorpark The following changes would bring City of Moorpark's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data sources listed are suggestions for your use. A. Housing Programs 1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner - occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low - income households (Section 65583(c)(1)). Moorpark's remaining share of the regional housing need for lower- income households, after accounting for approved and constructed units, is 292 units (240 very low- and 52 low - income). It is our understanding that six projects (Hitch Ranch, Suncal, Westpointe, LT Development, Pending CPD Conversion and USA properties) could add substantial numbers of new lower - income units, if approved as proposed. The element should clarify the current status of these projects and indicate when action is likely to be taken. If developed as proposed, within the current planning period, Moorpark would have sufficient sites to accommodate its regional share need. However, if the pending projects are not approved as proposed, then the City should revise the element's adequate sites program (Program 3) to commit to rezone sites early in the planning period, with appropriate zoning and development standards sufficient to accommodate the City's remaining share of the regional housing need for lower- income households. The element should also demonstrate that rezoning land to allow a maximum density of 17 dwelling units per acre is a sufficient density to acGGiridate i13e development oil' zii.4w affordable to lower-income h-ouseholds. Moorpark's commitment to utilize more than $4 million in in -lieu fees toward the production of affordable housing and construct up to 20 very low - income housing units by 2004 is commendable. However, the element must still identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning sufficient to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need for lower- income households. In addition, an inclusionary program does not address the adequate sites requirement. 2. The housing element shall contain programs, which "address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing" (Section 65583(c)(3)). The element describes design standards and their application through the Residential Planned Development (RPD) process, but objective design standards do not currently exist. In the absence of such standards, it appears that the design review process can add significantly to the time and cost in obtaining development approvals. Although the element provides a program (Program 18) to develop City -wide design standards by the end of 2003, the program does not address the RPD or design review process as a constraint, which is a lack of predictability in the approval process and consequently, the element should be revised to address this concern in a more timely manner. . DOC- o3 -x2001 11:47 FROM HCD DEPAP,13ffNT OF HOUSING AND CON Mft]NTTY DEVELOPMENT Division of Dousing Policy Development 1900 Third Sunet. Suite 430 P, O. Box 932053 5acrumam, CA 94252 -2053 www.hcd.ca.Aov (916) 323 -3176 FAX. (916) 327.2613 December 13, 2001 Mr. Wayne Loftus, Director Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 TO 918055298270 P.02/03 RE: Review of the City of Moorpark's Revised Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Loftus: ■ .q�Q Thank you for submitting Moorpark's revised draft housing element received by facsimile for our review on December 10, 2001. As you are aware, the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is required to review housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Telephone conversations with Mr. Mark Hoffman and Mr. John Libiez assisted our review. This letter summarizes the telephone conversations. We are pleased to find Moorpark's revisions adequately address the statutory requirements described in our November 29, 2001 review. Therefore, the City's revised draft element will be in compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when it is adopted by the City Council. The revisions included an update of the status of pending projects, additional comments to strengthen Program 3 (Program to Rezone Sites) and revisions to Program 18 (Design Review). The City has committed to reporting on its progress in implementing Program 3 in the Department's annual reports required pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 and submitting the report to HCD. We appreciate the dedication and persistence of Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Libiez in developing a housing element that responds to the needs of the community and addresses the requirements of State housing element Iaw. We look forward to following the City's annual progress in program implementation and receiving the adopted housing element for our review pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(8). If you require additional assistance or have any questions, please contact Paul Mc Dougall, of our staff, at (916) 3227995. ATTACHMENT 6 w DEC -? 3 ,2001 1147 FROM HCD TO 918055298270 P.03/03 A 'W Wayne Loftus, Director Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Cathy E. reswell Deputy Director cc: Mark Hoffman, Cotton Bridges Associates John Libiez, City of Moorpark Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on ]lousing & Community Development Catherine Xsrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Industry Association ]Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Dara Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Ruben Duran, Law Firm of Net field, Jaffe & Levin Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments Karen Warner, Cotton Bridges & Associates David Booher, California Dousing Council Jonathan Lehrer - Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company Dara Schur, Western Center on Law & Poverty Jonathan Lehrer- Graiwer, Attorney at Law Karen Flock, Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance TOTAL P.03 -71a_ ITEM �. �. CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL TO: Honorable City Council FROM: John Libiez, Planning Manager DATE: December 14, 2001 SUBJECT: Revised General Plan Housing Element Attached please find the Final Hearing Draft General Plan Housing Element as prepared by Cotton - Bridges Associates. This item submitted under separate cover as indicated in your December 19, 2001 agenda report. C: Steve Kueny, City Manager Deborah Traffenstedt, City Clerk Housing Element File M:\ JLibiez\ M \GenPlan \HsngElTransl21401.doc s� � � � UM 0 0 � 00 � \\ � 01,) ) \ � � � \ \ � \\ � \ � � « \) 3 2\ . \ 9 . ■ I J) [41 • 109 ' W N 2000 -2005 Housing Element Draft December 2001 CITY OF MOORPARK Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Consultant to City: CBA, Inc. 747 E. Green St., Suite #300 Pasadena, CA 91101 TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Moorpark Housing Element TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ............................1 -1 A. State Policy and Authorization .................................... ............................... 1 -2 B. Role of the Housing Element ...................................... ............................... 1 -2 C. Data Sources .............................................................. ............................... 1 -3 D. Public Participation ..................................................... ............................... 1 -3 E. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ............. ............................... 1 -4 11. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................ ............................2 -1 A. Population Characteristics .......................................... ............................... 2 -1 B. Household Characteristics .......................................... ............................... 2 -5 C. Housing Stock Characteristics .................................... ............................... 2 -12 D. Regional Housing Needs ............................................ ............................... 2 -17 E. Assisted Housing At -Risk of Conversion ..................... ............................... 2 -22 III. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ......................................... ............................3 -1 A. Market Constraints ..................................................... ............................... 3 -1 B. Governmental Constraints .......................................... ............................... 3.4 C. Environmental Constraints .......................................... ............................... 3 -17 IV. HOUSING RESOURCES ............................................ ............................4 -1 A. Availability of Sites for Housing ................................... ............................... 4 -1 B. Financial Resources ................................................... ............................... 4 -7 C. Administrative Resources ........................................... ............................... 4 -11 D. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................... ............................... 4 -12 V. HOUSING PLAN ......................................................... ............................5 -1 A. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments .......................... ............................... 5 -1 B. Goals and Policies ...................................................... ............................... 5 -6 C. Programs ....................................................................... ............................5 -9 Figure 1: Environmental Constraints ..................................... ............................... 3 -20 Appendix — Glossary of Terms City of Moorpark i Housing Element TABLE OF CONTENTS Chart Page 2 -1 Population Growth Trends .......................................... ............................... 2 -1 2 -2 Age Characteristics .................................................... ............................... 2 -2 2 -3 Race and Ethnicity ...................................................... ............................... 2 -3 2 -4 Education Level .......................................................... ............................... 2-4 2 -5 Occupations Held by Residents .................................. ............................... 2 -4 2 -6 Household Type ......................................................... ............................... 2 -5 2 -7 Household Composition .............................................. ............................... 2 -5 2 -8 Household Income ...................................................... ............................... 2 -6 2 -9 Income Groups in Moorpark ....................................... ............................... 2 -6 2 -10 Special Needs Groups in Moorpark ............................ ............................... 2 -7 2 -11 Housing for Special Needs Groups ............................. ............................... 2 -11 2 -12 Housing Composition ................................................. ............................... 2 -12 2 -13 Age of Housing Stock ................................................. ............................... 2 -13 2 -14 Housing Prices in Moorpark ........................................ ............................... 2 -14 2 -15 Housing Affordability Matrix ........................................ ............................... 2 -15 2 -16 Housing Problems Summary ...................................... ............................... 2 -17 2 -17 Income by Ethnicity .................................................... ............................... 2 -18 2 -18 Lower Income Households ......................................... ............................... 2 -18 2 -19 Overcrowding Rate ..................................................... ............................... 2 -19 2 -20 Household Overcrowding Profile ................................ ............................... 2 -19 2 -21 Overpayment Rate ..................................................... ............................... 2 -20 2 -22 Household Overpayment Profile ................................. ............................... 2 -20 2 -23 Moorpark's RHNA Allocation ...................................... ............................... 2 -21 2 -24 Inventory of Assisted Units ......................................... ............................... 2 -22 3 -1 Disposition of Home Loans ......................................... ............................... 3 -2 3 -2 Loan Disposition in Moorpark and Ventura County ..... ............................... 3 -3 3 -3 Residential Land Use Categories ............................... ............................... 3 -4 3 -4 Specific Plan Residential Land Use Summary ............ ............................... 3 -5 3 -5 Residential Development Standards ........................... ............................... 3 -6 3 -6 Housing Types Permitted in Residential Zones .......... ............................... 3 -8 3 -7 Development Review Process .................................... ............................... 3 -10 3 -8 Development Review Time Frames ............................ ............................... 3 -11 3 -9 Development Review Fees ......................................... ............................... 3 -13 4 -1 Regional Housing Needs Share for Moorpark ............. ............................... 4 -1 4 -2 Housing Projects on Residential Zoned Land ............. ............................... 4 -3 4 -3 Housing Projects Built/Planned on Commercial Land . ............................... 4 -4 4-4 Additional Development Potential ............................... ............................... 4 -6 4 -5 Summary of Efforts to Address the RHNA .................. ............................... 4 -7 4 -6 Financial Resources for Housing Activities ................. ............................... 4 -9 5 -1 Past Accomplishments ............................................... ............................... 5 -5 5 -2 Housing Program Implementation Summary .............. ............................... 5 -18 City of Moorpark ii Housing Element INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION Nestled among the rolling hills in the center of Ventura County, Moorpark incorporated as a city in 1983. Beginning with the small settlements of Epworth and Fremonville, Moorpark has experienced tremendous growth since the 1980s — increasing to a population estimated at 30,000. Despite this rapid population growth, Moorpark has retained its country charm reminiscent of a small town. Moorpark is distinct from other communities in Ventura County. The City has a high percentage of younger families between ages 25 to 44. Residents tend to have a generally higher education level than many communities, and also the highest median household income in the County. Due to the predominantly residential nature of the community, Moorpark serves as a bedroom community for larger employment centers throughout Ventura County and as well as northwest Los Angeles County. The City's housing stock offers a range of housing opportunities consistent with the urban -rural nature of Ventura County. The Downtown area offers a mix of older single - family neighborhoods, commercial and higher density development. New residential development is nestled in the surrounding hillsides, offering more rural settings. Improvement in the Southern California economy has fostered increased residential development in particular in Specific Plan areas and other areas around the perimeter. Although the improvement in the economy has caused significant residential development, it has also caused a rapid increase in housing and land prices. These increases place a high burden upon lower income individuals and families, seniors, the disabled, large families, farmworkers, and other persons with special housing needs. Though higher priced homes ring the downtown area, the City's center contains much of the older housing stock, some of which is showing significant signs of deterioration. Moorpark faces several challenges over the housing element period. These challenges include maintaining the diversity of the housing stock, ensuring the affordability of the housing stock, rehabilitating the older housing stock in the central downtown, fostering economic development in the downtown, and balancing growth with the needs of existing residents. For the present 2000 -2005 planning period, the City of Moorpark has set forth the following goals for addressing the housing needs facing the community: ➢ Adequate provision of decent, safe and affordable housing for residents without regard to race, age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, or other arbitrary considerations. ➢ Adequate provision of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and location with particular attention to the provision of housing for special needs groups. ➢ Encourage growth through the identification of suitable parcels for residential development, changes in land use patterns, and appropriate recycling of land. ➢ Develop a balanced community accessible to employment, transportation, shopping, medical services, and governmental agencies among others. City of Moorpark 1 -1 Housing Element INTRODUCTION A. State Policy and Authorization The California Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every citizen as the State's major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature requires that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plan. The Government Code sets forth specific components to be contained in a housing element, which must be updated at least every five years to reflect a community's changing housing needs. Moorpark's Housing Element was last updated in 1989 pursuant to State law. Subsequent updates of the Housing Element were postponed, because the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (the basis of the Housing Element) was not funded by the State Legislature or prepared by SCAG until 2000. In the meantime, the Legislature extended the original five -year Housing Element planning period from 1989 through 1998 until funding was authorized for SCAG to prepare the RHNA. This Housing Element update is for the planning period of 2000 -2005. B. Role of the Housing Element Moorpark is faced with important challenges over the 2000 -2005 planning period. Challenges include the following: balancing employment and housing opportunities; ensuring a match between the supply of and demand for housing; providing housing that is affordable for all segments of the population; and preserving the quality of the housing stock. The 2000 -2005 Housing Element sets forth a series of goals, policies and programs to provide housing to accommodate changes in the community. The Housing Element is a five -year plan extending from 2000 -2005, unlike other General Plan elements that cover a minimum ten -year planning horizon. This Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on: 1) conserving and improving existing affordable housing; 2) providing adequate housing sites; 3) assisting in the development of affordable housing; 4) removing governmental and other constraints to development; and 5) promoting equal housing opportunities. The Housing Element consists of the following major components: • An analysis of the City's demographic profile, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 2); • A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting the City's identified housing needs (Section 3); • An evaluation of the land, financial, and organizational resources available to address the City's identified housing needs goals (Section 4); and • A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City's identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies and programs (Section 5). City of Moorpark 1 -2 Housing Element INTRODUCTION C. Data Sources Various sources of information are used to prepare the Housing Element. The 1990 Census provides the basis for population and household characteristics. Although dated, the Census remains the most comprehensive and widely accepted source of information. In addition, 1990 - Census data must be used in the Housing Element to ensure consistency with other Regional, State, and Federal housing plans. However, several sources of data are used to supplement and provide reliable updates of the 1990 Census. • Population and demographic data is updated by the State Department of Finance, and school enrollment data from the local Unified School District; • Housing market information, such as home sales, rents, and vacancies, is updated by City surveys and property tax assessor's files; • Public and nonprofit agencies are consulted for data on special needs groups, the services available to them, and gaps in the system; and • Lending patterns for home purchase and home improvement loans are provided through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database. D. Public Participation Moorpark provided several opportunities for residents to comment on the Housing Element and recommend strategies for adoption. Prior to public hearings, the document was available for review at the City Hall and public libraries. To ensure a wide distribution, the document was sent to the School District, Moorpark College Library, and the Post Office. Local nonprofit and housing advocate groups were also contacted regarding the availability of the Housing Element. In this manner, all economic segments of residents had opportunity to review the Housing Element. The City has also conducted workshops for the Housing Element on three separate occasions before the Planning Commission. Prior to the public hearing, the meeting was duly noticed and documents were made available to the public. In order to ensure that lower- income households minorities and special needs groups were aware of and had the opportunity to participate in a public hearing the City contacted the following groups: Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, California Rural Legal Assistance the Senior Center, and the local college. The Housing Element was then sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for their comment. After HCD review, public hearings were held before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Notification was also published in the local newspaper in advance of each hearing and copies of the draft Element were available for public review. Public hearings were also telecast. Comments from HCD and the public were incorporated in the Housing Element. City of Moorpark 1 -3 Housing Element INTRODUCTION E. Relationship to the General Plan The Housing Element is one of the elements of the comprehensive General Plan. Moorpark's General Plan is comprised of the following six elements: (1) Land Use Element, (2) Circulation Element; (3) Housing Element; (4) Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Element; (5) Noise Element; and (6) Safety Element. The Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan Elements and is entirely consistent with the policies set forth in those elements. The City will ensure consistency between General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with those in other elements. At this time, the revised Element does not propose significant change to any other element of the City's adopted General Plan. However, if it becomes apparent over time that changes to another element are needed for internal consistency, such changes will be proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. City of Moorpark 1 -4 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Assuring the availability of decent and affordable housing for residents of all economic strata is an important goal for Moorpark. To that end, this section of the Housing Element analyzes population and housing characteristics to identify the City's specific housing needs. Important characteristics to consider include: demographics, household characteristics, housing characteristics, and its share of the region's housing needs. This section serves as the basis for developing the City's goals, policies, and programs designed to meet the City's identified housing needs in Chapter V, the "Housing Plan." A. Population Characteristics Population characteristics affect the type of housing need in a community. Population growth, age characteristics, race /ethnicity, and employment trends determine the type of housing need and the ability to afford different housing. This section details the various population characteristics affecting housing needs. 1. Population Trends Moorpark's population has increased significantly over the past 20 years (Chart 2 -1), increasing by approximately 281%, by far the highest rate in the County of Ventura. From an estimated 7,800 persons in 1980, prior to the City's incorporation in 1983, the population increased to 25,494 by 1990. Since 1990, however, population growth has slowed to an additional 16% over the decade to a total of 29,727 in 2000. Significant population growth potential remains. As described later, over 3,100 homes are under construction which, based upon the City's average household size of 3.3 persons, could result in 10,000 additional residents over the following decade. According to the Southern California Association of Governments, this population growth will continue at a slower pace through the Year 2020. Chart 2 -1: Population Growth Trends Source: State Department of Finance, 2000. City of Moorpark 2 -1 Housing Element 37,797 52,303 OWN 63,335 atia g 68% Camarillo Moorpark 7,798 25,494 29,727 281% Simi Valley 77,500 100,217 113,023 1 46% Thousand Oaks 77,072 104,352 120,744 57% Ventura County 529,174 669,016 756,501 43% Source: State Department of Finance, 2000. City of Moorpark 2 -1 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2. Age Characteristics Housing needs are determined largely by the age characteristics of residents. Each age group has distinct lifestyles, families, income levels, and housing preferences. As people move through stages of life, their housing needs and preferences change. Therefore, evaluating and understanding the age characteristics of a community is an important factor in addressing existing and future housing needs of residents. Compared to Ventura County communities, Moorpark has a higher proportion of young, well - educated, upper income families. According to the 1990 Census, 43% of Moorpark's population were comprised of individuals age 25 -44 years compared to 35% for the County. In addition, children and adolescents made up 33% of Moorpark's population compared to 27% Countywide. For adults over age 45, this portion represents 16% of Moopark's population versus 27% Countywide. Seniors represent 4% of residents in Moorpark, compared to 9% for the County. One of the more important demographic changes taking place across Ventura County communities is the gradual aging of the baby -boom generation (born between 1946 -1964) and their children (1975- 1995). This should place an increasing demand on more affordable single - family homes for the entry-level market and for empty- nesters choosing to trade down their larger homes for smaller units. Future age characteristics are also affected by recent developments. The upswing in construction of single - family homes should draw a large in- migration of middle -aged adults ages 44 -64 and their children to the community of Moorpark through 2010. Chart 2 -2 below summarizes and compares the age distribution of Moorpark residents compared to that of Ventura County as a whole in 1990. Chart 2 -2: Age Characteristics ge" rcir�p Preschool (0-4) ��Ye�Cc�gtt .� 53,778 it ereert ` 8% Qorp ,:.. 2,924 11% School Age (5 -17) 129,208 19% 5,610 22% College Age (18-24) 71,825 11% 2,108 8% Young Adults (25 -44) 230,575 35% 10,844 43% Middle Age (45 -64) 120,625 18% 3,035 12% Seniors (65 +) 63,005 9% 973 4% Total 669,016 100% 25,494 100% Median Age 31.7 29.2 Source: U.S. Census 1990 City of Moorpark 2 -2 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3. Race and Ethnicity The racial /ethnic composition of a city often has important implications for housing need to the extent that different groups may have different household characteristics (such as household size or average age), income levels, and cultural preferences that affect the type of housing that is best suited to their family needs. Understanding these differences provides a basis for addressing housing needs. Moorpark's population has a racial /ethnic composition similar to that of the County. Chart 2 -3 provides a comparison of race and ethnicity between Moorpark and Ventura County in 1990. Whites made up over two- thirds of the population in both the City and County, while Hispanics comprised 22% and 26% respectively. Asians and African Americans comprised the smallest proportion in both jurisdictions. Moorpark's racial /ethnic composition remained the same during the 1990s. According to statistics from the Moorpark Unified School District, enrollment by ethnicity from 1988 to 1999 has remained relatively stable. During this period, White students accounted for approximately 62% of the school age population, while Hispanic and Asian students comprised about 30% and 5% respectively. Chart 2 -3: Race and Ethnicity Source: U.S. Census 1990 As noted earlier, the differences in income levels by race - ethnicity typically may affect the housing opportunities available to particular groups. For instance, with respect to homeownership, over 82% of White households owned their own homes compared to approximately 87% of Asian households, 69% of African American households, and 67% of Hispanic households. The difference in homeownership rates is largely related to income differences noted in a later section of this Element. City of Moorpark 2 -3 Housing Element fie, ura aan, °fl. 'cro a 9 tacit r Puce � eimbe � e�cer���' White 440,555 66% 17,745 70% African American 14,559 2% 364 1 % Hispanic 176,952 26% 5,613 22% Asian 32,665 5% 1,644 6% All Other 4,285 1% 128 1% Total 669,016 100% 25,494 100% Source: U.S. Census 1990 As noted earlier, the differences in income levels by race - ethnicity typically may affect the housing opportunities available to particular groups. For instance, with respect to homeownership, over 82% of White households owned their own homes compared to approximately 87% of Asian households, 69% of African American households, and 67% of Hispanic households. The difference in homeownership rates is largely related to income differences noted in a later section of this Element. City of Moorpark 2 -3 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 4. Education and Employment Education and employment levels are key factors in determining household income and housing choices. Moorpark is particularly notable for its high education levels and percentage of residents that hold professional and managerial positions. The higher income level associated with these positions has shaped the demand for single - family housing in the community. The educational level of Moorpark residents is markedly higher than that of Ventura County (Chart 2 -4). As of the 1990 Census, approximately 38% of Moorpark residents held an associate's degree or higher college degree, while over 66% of residents had attended college. In contrast, only 32% of Ventura County residents over the age of 25 had a college degree and 57% had some college education. The high educational status of residents is typically reflected in the higher - paying occupations held by residents. Chart 2-4: Education Level College No H.S. ploma 15% 28% H.S. Nploma 20% Due in part to the higher level of education of residents, Moorpark has benefited from a low unemployment rate of 2.8% in 1999 compared to 4.8% for the County. Moreover, almost 40% of City residents held high paying managerial or professional positions compared to 29% of County residents. City residents also held a smaller share of labor and production positions (13 %)than residents Countywide (23 %). Chart 2 -5: Occupations Held by Residents Managerial /Professional en �Coun 98,253 ��� 3 - 29% kig 4,654 39% Sales, Technical, Admin. 107,561 32% 4,218 35% Service Occupations 37,637 11% 1,199 10% Production and Labor 77,413 23% 1,586 13% Farming, Forestry, Fishery 15,908 5% 373 3% Total 336,772 100% 12,030 100% Source: U.S. Census 1990 Though almost 40% of Moorpark residents hold managerial or professional jobs, most do not work in the City. In fact, only 7% of Moorpark residents work within the City boundaries; whereas, 93% commute to jobs outside the City. This is compared with 57% of Ventura County residents who work outside their place of residence. Thus Moorpark serves as a bedroom community for nearby businesses. City of Moorpark 2 -4 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT B. Household Characteristics Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents. This section details the various household characteristics of Moorpark's residents, while Section D of this Chapter discusses existing housing needs of residents. 1. Household Characteristics According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), Moorpark had 8,796 households as of January 2000. This is a 15% increase since 1990. Chart 2 -6 illustrates the three major households types in Moorpark according to the 1990 Census. The household composition of Moorpark included a higher percentage of families (85 %) versus 76% in Ventura County. The remaining percentage of the community's households were comprised of either single persons (9 %) or other households (6 %). Chart 2 -6: Household Type According to the Department of Finance, in 2000, the City's average household size was 3.3, relatively unchanged since 1990. The largest group of households in Moorpark is families. Among family households, the largest share are married couples with children (49 %) followed by married couples with no children (25 %). Single parents with children comprise 6% of families. In contrast, married couples with children comprise a third of the households in the County (Chart 2 -7). Chart 2 -7: Household Composition Iia�se 117- ��, Households .. auselioce 217,298 -- ouseha _ :. 7,621 eGC e -- Families 164,774 76% 6,436 84% Married No Children 62,944 29% 1,906 25% Married With Children 71,431 33% 3,741 49% Single Parent 18,764 9% 491 6% Other Families 11,634 5% 298 4% Non - Families 52,525 24% 1,185 16% Singles 37,991 17% 702 9% Other 14,534 7 % 483 6% Source: U.S. Census 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -5 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2. Household Income Household income levels determine a family's ability to balance the costs of renting or owning a home while reserving sufficient income to afford other necessities for their families. Income levels can vary considerably among households, based upon their tenure (renters or owners), and household type, among other factors. In 1990, Moorpark households earned a median income of $60,368 -- 80% significantly higher than the Ventura Chart 2 -8: Household Income County average of $45,612. As shown in Chart 2 -8, Moorpark's income profile 60% Q Ventura County consists primarily of upper income households (63 %) versus a ■ Moorpark significantly smaller 40% 9 Y percentage of Very Low lower (17 %) income households. In 00 -50% contrast, Ventura County had a 20% 23% significantly lower percentage of upper F�n -in income households (45 %), and a F significantly higher ° °�° - g y g percent of lower 14% a (33%) income households. very Low t_ow Moderate Upper The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) classifies households into the following categories based on income, tenure, and household size as a percentage of the County median family income (MFI): • Very Low: Earned up to 50% of the County MFI • Low: Earned 51 % to 80% of the County MFI • Moderate: Earned 81 % to 120% of the County MFI • Upper: Earned above 120% of the County MFI Chart 2 -9 summarizes the distribution of income among households within Moorpark. Approximately 40% of the lower income households in the City are renters. On the other hand, 30% of moderate income households, rent. Upper income households are almost exclusively homeowners, almost 90% own their home. Chart 2 -9: Income Groups in Moorpark Source: Southern Califomia Association of Govemments, 1998. City of Moorpark 2 -6 Housing Element Very Low 00 -50% 9% 23% 6% Low 51 -80% 8% 14% 7% Moderate 81- 120% 19% 26% 17% Upper 120 %+ 64% 37% 70% Total 100% 100% 100% Source: Southern Califomia Association of Govemments, 1998. City of Moorpark 2 -6 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3. Special Needs Groups Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one's employment and income, family characteristics, disability, and household characteristics among others. As a result, certain Moorpark residents may experience a higher prevalence of lower income, overpayment, overcrowding, or other housing problems. State Housing Element law defines "special needs" groups to include the following: senior households, disabled persons, larger households, single parent families with children, homeless people, and farm - workers. This section therefore contains a detailed discussion of the housing needs facing each particular group as well as city programs and services available to address their housing needs. Defining housing issues of a special needs group is clearer than defining the magnitude. Because Housing Elements in the SCAG region must be submitted before the 2000 Census is published, the 1990 Census must be used to estimate the size of a particular need group. The use of the 1990 Census may therefore not reflect the magnitude of changes that have occurred between 1990 and 2000. Chart 2 -10 below summarizes the special needs groups residing in Moorpark. Chart 2 -10: Special Needs Groups in Moorpark Note: 1. Farmworkers: includes agricultural, fishing and forestry workers. Source: U.S. Census 1990 City of Moorpark 2 -7 Housing Element Seniors (65 years and older) 973 5h 4% Disabled Persons (16+ years) Work Disability 735 4% Mobility /Self -Care Limitation 711 3% Large HHDs (5+ members) W r 1,407 19% Single Parent Households ' r Single Parents w/ children EAR- 491 5% Other Subfamilies hcsN ry�-� � , r- 106 1% College Students 1,811 7% Homeless Persons <10 0° Farmworkers' 373, 1% Note: 1. Farmworkers: includes agricultural, fishing and forestry workers. Source: U.S. Census 1990 City of Moorpark 2 -7 Housing Element ROUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Senior Citizens. Senior citizens are considered a special needs group, because their limited income, health costs, and disabilities make it much more difficult to afford suitable housing. For Housing Element purposes, senior households are defined as 65 years or older. Moorpark was home to 513 senior householders, of which 432 were owners and 81 were renters. Seniors have special housing needs due to the following: ✓ Disabilities. A high share of seniors (20 %) have a self -care or mobility limitation, defined as a condition lasting over six months which makes it difficult to go outside the home alone or take care of one's personal needs. ✓ Limited Income. Because of their retired status and fixed income, well over 50% of senior households earn lower income— placing a significant burden on their ability to purchase other necessities of life, in particular medical care. ✓ Overpayment.. Because of the limited supply of affordable housing, over 30% of senior households overpay for housing. Overpayment also varies by tenure: 22% of homeowners and 59% of renters are overpaying. Moorpark has a variety of services for senior residents including a congregate nutrition program, specially delivered meals to homebound seniors, direct food assistance for low income seniors, and a range of senior activities. Medical transportation is also provided via the Senior Survival mobile. In addition, Tafoya Terrace provides housing for lower- income seniors residing in Moorpark. Disabled Persons. Moorpark is home to a number of people who have a physical or mental disability that prevent them from working, restrict their mobility, or make it difficult to care for themselves. The 1990 Census defines three major disabilities: (1) work disability, (2) mobility limitation, which makes it difficult to go outside the home alone; and (3) self care limitations, which make it difficult to take care of one's personal needs. Taken together, 4% of residents have a work disability; 3% a self care /mobility limitation. Various programs can encourage the provision of special housing design features (e.g., wheel chair ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doors, etc) as a means to assist disabled persons to live independently. Special housing can also be provided for disabled persons. In the nonprofit sector, the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers provides information, support and resources to promote the Independent Living philosophy for disabled persons. For persons unable to live in an independent setting or who need additional care, Moorpark complies with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. The City allows State - authorized, certified, or licensed family care homes, foster homes, or group homes serving six or less disabled persons in all residential zones. Moorpark has one residential facility for the elderly /disabled. In addition, the City funds a paratransit service to meet the transportation needs for disabled residents. City of Moorpark 2 -8 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Large Households. The Federal Government defines large households as having five or more members. Large households are considered to have special needs, because the shortage of affordable and adequately sized housing makes overcrowding and overpayment more prevalent. The 1990 Census reported that Moorpark had over 1,407 large households, of which 1,052 owned homes and 355 rented homes. Large households have the following housing needs. ✓ Limited Income. Approximately 23% of large families in Moorpark earned low income, according to the 1990 Census. Of that total, approximately 61 % of renters and 39% of owners earned low incomes. ✓ Available Housing. Moorpark had 5,000 large homes and 752 rentals (3 or more bedrooms) that could easily accommodate large families; however, many of the units are not affordable to them as evidenced below. ✓ Housing Problems. Because of high housing costs, 92% of renters overpaid for housing and 67% lived in overcrowded conditions in 1990. Among large owner households, 20% overpaid and 19% were overcrowded. One of the greatest housing shortage in most communities is larger rental units. To address the issue, the Federal Government provides Section 8 assistance for property owners accepting the certificates. Communities can provide incentives (such as land write - downs) for developers to build larger apartments with three or more bedrooms that can accommodate larger households. Or some communities will require the provision of inclusionary units through developer agreements. Single Parents. Single parents often require special consideration and assistance as a result of their lower income, high costs of childcare, and the need for affordable housing. According to the 1990 Census, Moorpark was home to 491 single parents with dependent children under age 18 and 106 single parent subfamilies living with other families. Single parents with children typically have the following needs. ✓ Limited Income. According to the 1990 Census, the poverty rate among female- headed families was 24% for families with children under age 18 and over 30% for those with children under age 5. ✓ Childcare Costs. According to Census Bureau publications, single parent households spend 12% of their income on preschool childcare; those earning less than $15,000 spend up to 25% of their income. ✓ Housing Problems. Although no statistics are available, it is reasonable to assume that single parents pay a larger share of their income for housing and therefore have higher overpayment rates. City of Moorpark 2 -9 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Students. Students have special housing needs due to limited income and financial resources. Many students attending part-time in community colleges work full -time jobs, while full time students often work less. In either case, students often earn low income, pay more than half their income for housing, and thus may double up to save income. According to the 1990 Census, however, 1,811 persons, or approximately 7 % of the total population, living in Moorpark was enrolled in college. The City of Moorpark is located near many regional colleges, including California State University (Northridge), University of California (Ventura), California Lutheran, and other smaller colleges. Locally, the City is home to Moorpark Community College with an enrollment of over 10,000 students. Of this total, approximately 1,000 students come from the City of Moorpark itself, 3,500 from Simi Valley, 4,000 from the Conejo Valley, and 1,800 from the remainder of Ventura County. The type of housing need depends on the nature of the enrollment. Currently, 2 /3rds of the students are part-time and working within their respective communities. As is the case with most community colleges, no housing is provided by the College. Because the vast majority of students commute from other communities where they work or live, the need for housing is not considered significant. Moorpark College does, however, assist students in finding appropriate housing in the community. Homeless Persons. 1990 Census data show that there are no homeless people living in Moorpark. However, the 1990 Census Bureau count of the homeless is seriously flawed in that it only counts homeless people in emergency shelters or on the streets and was only point estimate rather than time estimate. Still, the homeless population in Moorpark is extremely small, fewer than 10 persons, as reported by regional service agencies. While there are no homeless shelters in Moorpark, several homeless shelters and service providers operate in adjacent communities. These include the Conejo Winter Shelter in Thousand Oaks, which is operated by Lutheran Social Services, the winter shelter run by PADS in Simi Valley, and the Samaritan Center in Simi Valley, which operates a drop -in center that offers supportive services to the homeless. As a member of the Ventura Council of Government's Standing Committee on Homelessness, the City is engaged in addressing homelessness and the needs of the homeless throughout the region. Locally, the City funds Catholic Charities, which provides eviction prevention services that help very low income individuals and families that are at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the agency provides a variety of services such as food, clothing and referrals to those persons who are homeless. Channel Counties Legal Services, in conjunction with Catholic Charities, also provides legal assistance, such as eviction prevention services and landlord /tenant counseling, one day a week to lower income Moorpark residents. City of Moorpark 2 -10 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Farmworkers. According to the 1990 Census, there are approximately 373 persons working in occupations dealing with natural resources. Natural resource jobs include those in farming, fishing and forestry. However, standard Census data regarding natural resource jobs over - estimate the City's farmworker population, because it includes a range of other nonfarm related employment. Much of the agricultural land is located outside of Moorpark, although a small amount of farm land does exists in Moorpark. Few if any migrant farm workers reside within the community of Moorpark. However, the City does have one complex for permanent farm worker housing and permits additional farm worker housing in certain zones pursuant to a conditional use permit. Housing for Special Needs Groups Moorpark has a wide range of housing options for its special needs populations. These consist of a residential care facility and public housing for the elderly and disabled, affordable single - family housing for lower income farmworker households, and affordable housing for lower income households including larger units. Chart 2- 11 identifies the type of housing available for special needs groups in Moorpark. Chart 2 -11: Housing for Special Needs Groups * Under construction * Approved and awaiting construction + In Planning Phase City of Moorpark 2 -11 Housing Element 01 N Tafoya Terrance Public Housing 30 units Seniors and the disabled Villa Del Arroyo Mobilehomes 48 of 480 24 rent restricted (bonds) Colibri Elder Care Residential Care 6 beds Seniors and disabled Villa Campesina Single- family homes 62 units Low income/ farmworkers Archstone Le Club Apartments 74 units Lower income households (bond) Archstone Apartments *62 units Lower income households Mountain View Single- family homes 15 units Low Income /larger families Pacific Communities Single- family homes * *22 units Low Income /larger families Moorpark Highlands Single- family homes * *25 units Low -mod income large families Hitch Ranch Plan Apartments +100 units Low - moderate income families Villa Del Arroyo Mobilehome 48 units Restricted as low income units LT Development+ Apartments —80 units Lower income families U.S. A. Properties+ Apartment 176 units Senior housing * Under construction * Approved and awaiting construction + In Planning Phase City of Moorpark 2 -11 Housing Element 1 i HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT C. Housing Stock Characteristics This section of the Housing Element addresses various housing characteristics and conditions that affect the community and their housing needs. Important housing stock issues include the following: housing stock and growth, type of housing available, the tenure and vacancy rates, housing age, condition, and housing cost and affordability. 1. Housing Stock Characteristics A certain degree of diversity within the community's housing stock is an important factor in ensuring that adequate housing opportunities are available for Moorpark's existing and future residents. A diverse housing stock helps to ensure that all households, regardless of their income level, age group, and family size, have the opportunity to find housing that is best suited to their lifestyle needs. As of January 2000, the City had 9,135 housing units. As shown in Chart 2 -12, the predominant housing type is the single - family homes, accounting for 83% of the housing stock. Single- family attached homes comprised 10% of all housing units. Both smaller multi - family projects and larger complexes with more than 5 units made up 14% of the housing stock, while mobilehomes were 3% of housing in Moorpark. Moorpark also has a particularly notable high owner - occupancy rate of over 80% as well as with a generally low level of vacancies. In 1990, the overall vacancy rate was modest — at 2.0% for single - family and 6.3% for multi - family units. By 2000, the vacancy rate had dipped to 1 %. This is below the optimal vacancy rates of 1.5 -2.0% for single - family units, and 5 -6% for rental housing, according to SCAG. Chart 2 -12: Housing Composition Single - Family Detached 5,854 74% 6,708 73% 15% Single - Family Attached 865 11% 865 10% -0- Multi- Family (2-4 units) 182 2% 414 5% 127% Multi - Family (5 +) 717 9% 843 9% 18% Mobile Homes 297 4% 305 3% 3% Total Housing Units 7,915 100% 9,135 100% 15% Owners 6,108(80%) 82% Renters 1,513(20%) 18% Vacancy Rate 3.7% 1.1% Source: 1990 Census, State Department of Finance, 2000. City of Moorpark 2 -12 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2. Housing Age and Condition Housing age is often used as an indication of when homes require reinvestment. Most homes require greater maintenance as they approach 30 years of age. Common repairs needed include a new roof, wall plaster, and stucco. Homes older than 50 years require more substantial repairs, such as new siding, or plumbing, in order to maintain and extend the useful life and quality of the structure. According to the 1990 Census and 1999 data from the State Department of Finance, approximately 90% of all housing units in Moorpark are less than 30 years old. In fact, the vast majority of homes in the City were constructed recently during the 1980s. Compared with the rest of Ventura County, Moorpark has a much newer housing stock that is generally in good condition. The only exception are a few older homes in the downtown core. Chart 2 -13 identifies the percentage of housing units in Moorpark according to the age of the building as of 2000. Chart 2 -13: Age of Housing Stock 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0-29 yrs 30 -50 yrs 50+ yrs According to the 1990 Census, a total of 45 housing units did not have a kitchen, 37 units had incomplete plumbing, 27 units did not have sewer or septic tank disposal, and 16 units lacked fuel heating. No units were reported as boarded up. The majority of the City's substandard units are concentrated in the oldest parts of downtown Moorpark. The number of substandard units has not increased over time. Several older units have been demolished in recent years as property is recycled. For more routine issues, the City's Code Enforcement Division employs two full time code enforcement officers. Typical issues include property maintenance, illegally parked /inoperative vehicles, overgrown vegetation, and housing conditions. Code enforcement activities are focused in the central area of Moorpark, where much of the City's older housing stock is located. The Division works in conjunction with the rehabilitation program to identify homes that may benefit from services. City of Moorpark 2 -13 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3. Housing Costs and Affordability The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of overpayment and overcrowding. This section summarizes housing costs for housing in Moorpark and evaluates the affordability of the City's housing stock to low and moderate income households. Housing Prices and Rents. To obtain a representative picture of housing costs in Moorpark, a comprehensive survey was undertaken of home sales from September 1998 through October 1999 based on information from Dataquick. Moreover, an internet survey and phone survey were conducted to obtain the monthly rents charged at apartment complexes throughout Moorpark. Chart 2 -14 summarizes the results of the survey. During this period, 883 single - family units and condominiums were sold in Moorpark. Almost 90% of homes sold during this period were three- and four - bedroom units and the median price was approximately $253,500. Condominiums represented 20% of the housing units sold and the median sales price was less at $142,000 due to their smaller lot and building size (e.g., two or three bedroom units). Chart 2 -14: Housing Prices in Moorpark Source L.A. Times and Dataquick Corp., October 1999, intemet and Phone Survey (2000) Rental housing represents a much smaller percentage of the housing stock in Moorpark. According to the Census, renter - occupied housing comprises 11 percent of all housing units in the City. The rental market in Moorpark consists primarily of apartments, and to a lesser degree townhomes, condominiums, and some single - family homes. As shown in Chart 2 -14, rental rates for Moorpark ranged from $980 for a one - bedroom apartment to $1,500 for a three - bedroom unit. City of Moorpark 2 -14 Housing Element F C ndo�nir� dms p 4h end e :roc a fa u� t + a MEL Wx $980 $1,015 1 $150,000 1 $155,500 12 2 $163,250 32 $148,000 90 $1,085 $1,250 3 $225,000 333 $129,000 62 $1,405 $1,500 4 $292,500 283 $152,000 7 n.a. n.a. 5 $405,000 63 -0- -0- n.a. n.a. Median $253,500 712 $142,000 171 $980 $1,500 Source L.A. Times and Dataquick Corp., October 1999, intemet and Phone Survey (2000) Rental housing represents a much smaller percentage of the housing stock in Moorpark. According to the Census, renter - occupied housing comprises 11 percent of all housing units in the City. The rental market in Moorpark consists primarily of apartments, and to a lesser degree townhomes, condominiums, and some single - family homes. As shown in Chart 2 -14, rental rates for Moorpark ranged from $980 for a one - bedroom apartment to $1,500 for a three - bedroom unit. City of Moorpark 2 -14 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Housing Affordability. Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in Moorpark with the maximum affordable housing cost for households that earn different income levels. Taken together, this information can provide a picture of who can afford what size and type of housing as well as indicate the type of households that would likely experience overcrowding or overpayment. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines income levels based on HUD's annual determination of the median income for Ventura County. These income levels are adjusted for differences in the type and size of a family. HCD uses these income levels to determine the maximum amount that a household could pay and their eligibility for housing assistance. Chart 2 -15 shows the annual income for very low, low, and moderate income households by the size of the family and the maximum affordable housing payment based on the federal standard of 30% of household income. Standard housing costs for utilities, taxes, and property insurance are also shown. From these income and housing cost figures, the maximum affordable home price and rent is determined. Chart 2 -15: Housing Affordability Matrix Notations: 1. Small Family = 3 persons; Large Family = 5 or more persons; 2. Monthly affordable payment based on payments of no more than 30% of household income; 3. Property taxes and insurance based on averages for the region; 4. Calculation of affordable home sales prices based on a down payment of 10 %, annual interest rate of 8 %, 30 -year mortgage, utility costs of $50 -150 per month, and $200 per month in taxes and insurance. City of Moorpark 2 -15 Housing Element 11r Cb a e. a M2cx Affa�rd�af c Very Low One Person $24,000 $600 $53,000 $550 Small Family $30,850 $771 $71,000 $671 Large Family $37,000 $925 $87,000 $775 Low One Person $35,150 $879 $95,000 $829 Small Family $45,200 $1,130 $126,000 $1,030 Large Family $54,200 $1,355 $152,000 $1,205 Moderate One Person $57,550 $1,439 $180,000 $1,389 Small Family $74,000 $1,850 $235,000 $1,750 Large Family $88,000 $2,220 $283,000 $2,070 Notations: 1. Small Family = 3 persons; Large Family = 5 or more persons; 2. Monthly affordable payment based on payments of no more than 30% of household income; 3. Property taxes and insurance based on averages for the region; 4. Calculation of affordable home sales prices based on a down payment of 10 %, annual interest rate of 8 %, 30 -year mortgage, utility costs of $50 -150 per month, and $200 per month in taxes and insurance. City of Moorpark 2 -15 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Affordability by Household Income The previous chart showed the maximum amount that a household in a particular income range can pay for housing each month without exceeding the federally - defined 30% income - housing cost threshold for overpayment. This amount can be compared to current market prices for single - family homes, condominiums, and apartments to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford. Very Low Income Households. Very low income households in Moorpark earn between $24,000 and $37,000 depending on the size of the family. Based on financing criteria noted earlier, the maximum affordable home price ranges from $53,000 to $87,000. Because the majority of homes in Moorpark exceed $200,000, single- family homes are not a viable option for very low income households. Therefore, very low income households are typically limited to the rental market. Average apartment rents in 2000 were $1,000 for a one - bedroom unit, $1,200 for a two- bedroom unit, and $1,450 for a three - bedroom unit. Since a very low income household can pay $550 to $775 in rent per month, the rent for an apartment is well beyond what a very low income household could afford to pay. As a result, a very low income family renting in Moorpark would be faced with severe overpayment. Low Income Households. Low income households in Moorpark earn between $35,000 and $54,000 depending on the size of the family. The maximum affordable home price ranges from $95,000 to $152,000. Though there is a small number of homes that sold for under $152,000, the closing costs and the down payment would be a serious obstacle to homeownership for low income families. However, a low - income family could afford a condominium, which average $142,000. Based on the earlier affordability matrix, a low income household could afford to pay between $800 and $1,200 for an apartment. Given the range of rents in Moorpark, a low income household could afford a one or two- bedroom unit. Because of the scarcity of three and four bedroom apartment units, a large family may not afford market rents for such units without overpayment or living in overcrowded conditions. Moderate Income Households. Moderate income households, earning between $57,500 and $88,800, can afford a home price between $180,000 and $280,000. Though half of the homes for sale in 1999 were priced under $280,000, down payment, closing costs, and the recent interest rate increases may act as a barrier to home ownership even for moderate income households. In order to overcome this difficulty, the City could provide down payment assistance programs as an effective mechanism to transition moderate income renters to home ownership. While more limited in number, condominiums are an affordable home ownership opportunity for moderate income households since sales prices range from approximately $100,000 to $300,000. For moderate- income households earning in the lower range of their income category, assistance with down payment and closing costs will further enable moderate income families to overcome this hurdle. City of Moorpark 2 -16 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT D. Regional Housing Needs State law requires all regional councils of government, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to determine the existing and projected housing need for its region (Government Code Section 65580 et. seq.). SCAG is also required to determine the share of need allocated to each city and county within the SCAG region. This is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). 1. Existing Housing Needs A continuing priority of communities is enhancing or maintaining their quality of life. A key measure of quality of life in a community is the extent of "housing problems." The Department of Housing and Urban Development and SCAG have developed an existing need statement that details the number of households, which are paying too much for housing or are living in overcrowded units. These are defined below: ➢ Low Income: refers to a household, which earns less than 80% of the regional median income, adjusted for household size. Depending on household size, income must fall below approximately $50,000 annually. ➢ Overcrowding: refers to a housing unit which is occupied by more than one person per room, excluding kitchens, bathrooms, hallways, and porches, as defined by the Federal Government. ➢ Overpayment: refers to a household paying more than 30% of gross income for mortgage or rent, including costs for utilities, property insurance, and real estate taxes as defined by the Federal Government. ➢ Substandard Housing: refers to a housing unit which has an incomplete kitchen, bathroom, or plumbing facilities. Given that housing in Moorpark is relatively newer, substandard housing is less of an issue in this Element. Chart 2 -16 below summarizes key indicators of existing housing needs of overcrowding and overpayment of households in the City of Moorpark. Later charts present these issues in terms of household size, type, age, and income levels. Chart 2 -16: Housing Problems Summary Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -17 Housing Element rm.-me Total 16% 7% 48% Seniors 52% 0% 40% Small Families 9% 2% 48% Large Families 23% 29% 50% Others 16% 2 % 50% Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -17 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Household Income. As discussed earlier, Moorpark is a relatively wealthy community, with the highest median income of any other community in Ventura County. Despite this wealth, there are certain segments of the population which earn low income and, given the high housing costs in the region, are subject to overcrowding and overpayment. This section examines households at greatest risk of these housing problems. Chart 2 -17 shows the proportion of each race /ethnic group that earn extremely low, very low and low income. Each category is defined by its relationship to the County median family income. Asians and African Americans have the lowest proportion of lower income households. Hispanic households comprise 52% of lower income households and of that percentage, one -fifth are extremely low income. Thus Hispanic households appear to be at a significantly greater risk of housing problems, such as overcrowding. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Chart 2 -17: Income by Ethnicity White Ffispanic Asian African -Am Chart 2 -18 illustrates the proportion of households, by household type, that earn lower incomes in Moorpark. Approximately one -fifth of large households earn lower incomes. Moreover, over half of the large renter households earn lower incomes. Of large renter households, over 90% of those earning very low incomes were Hispanic. Though many elderly households in Moorpark also had lower incomes, this is presumably due to their fixed incomes. Because most seniors in Moorpark have already paid for their own homes and have a smaller household size, they are less vulnerable to overpayment and overcrowding than other groups. Chart 2 -18: Lower Income Households Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -18 Housing Element Overcrowding. An important measure of quality of life is the extent of overcrowding in a community. Planning areas with high levels of overcrowding are often associated with a relatively higher level of noise, deterioration of homes, and a shortage of on -site parking. Therefore, maintaining a reasonable level of occupancy and alleviating overcrowded housing conditions is an important contributor to quality of life. Overcrowding occurs when housing pfd costs are so high relative to income 25% that families double -up to save Total income to afford necessities of life. 20% As shown in Chart 2 -19, the 17% overcrowding rate in Moorpark is 19 % 0% for renters and 7% for owners. This is 15% similar to Ventura County because Small Families (2 -4 persons) although Moorpark has a higher 10% income level than the County, the 10% sales prices for single family homes 5% also exceed the County average. 46% Therefore, housing overcrowding 0% rates are similar in both jurisdictions. 1 % Chart 2 -19: Overcrowding Rate Worpark County Overcrowding rates vary significantly by income, type, and household (Chart 2 -20). Renter households have the highest total level of overcrowding at 18 %. This level of overcrowding is over three times that of owners due to their lower incomes. Regardless of income level or tenure, overcrowding is concentrated in large families, where 46% of renters and 22% of homeowners live in overcrowded conditions. In Moorpark, over half the low income, large households experienced overcrowding — due to the limited affordable and suitably sized housing that is available to them. Overcrowding tends to disproportionately affect Hispanics, who have the highest prevalence of large, lower income families. Moreover, the highest prevalence of overcrowding is located within the older Downtown portion of the community. Chart 2 -20: Household Overcrowding Profile x pfd �tt{s§ Htii _ t r� "tom Total 7% 5% 18% 17% Elderly (older than age 62) 0% 0% 0% 0% Small Families (2 -4 persons) 2% 1 % 8% 10% Large Families (5 or more) 29% 22% 46% 51% Others 2% 1 % 6% 0% Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -19 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Overpayment. Housing overpayment occurs when housing costs increase much faster than income. As in other communities in California, housing overpayment is not uncommon in Moorpark. However, to the extent that overpayment is disproportionately concentrated among the most vulnerable members of Moorpark, maintaining a reasonable level of housing cost burden is an important contributor to quality of life. Chart 2 -21 shows that housing overpayment differs among residents of 6o% Moorpark and that of Ventura County. Total According to the 1990 Census, the 50% County and Moorpark have identical 77% overpayment rates for rental housing. 40% However, there is a large difference with 30% respect to owner overpayment. Among Small Families owner - occupied housing, 35% County 20% homeowners and 49% of the City's 92% homeowners overpay for housing. 1 ° °% ° Unlike many communities, overpayment 0% is more by choice in Moorpark. Others Chart 2 -21: Overpayment Rate Nborpark County Of particular note, housing overpayment is most prevalent among upper income owner households. Currently, nearly 2/3rds of the all households overpaying for housing in Moorpark earn well above the County's median family income. This is because some families intentionally choose to pay more for their housing when moving up into larger homes. Because of their relatively higher income, these families still have more disposable income despite higher cost burdens. Though housing overpayment affects many households in Moorpark, lower income households are disproportionately impacted. For instance, over 90% of the community's small, lower income households and 80% of large, lower income households face overpayment problems and more than half these groups faced severe overpayment (e.g., paying more than half of their income on housing). Therefore, overpayment is particularly severe for certain groups of residents. Chart 2 -22: Household Overpayment Profile Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -20 Housing Element -e, Wrier IZenfersW �n e frico� Total 48% 49% 45% 77% Elderly 40% 40% 43% 54% Small Families 48% 47% 50% 92% Large Families 50% 53% 42% 80% Others 50 % 56% 37% 72% Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 1990. City of Moorpark 2 -20 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2. Future Housing Need Future housing need refers to the share of the region's housing need that has been allocated to a community. In brief, SCAG calculates future housing need based upon their household growth forecast, plus a certain amount of units needed to account for normal and appropriate level of vacancies and the replacement of units that are normally lost to conversion or demolition. The Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) served as a delegate agency in assisting these efforts. In allocating the region's future housing needs to iurisdictions SCAG is required to consider planning considerations pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code. These planning considerations are as follows: • Market demand for housing • Employment opportunities • Availability of suitable sites and public facilities ❑ Commuting patterns ❑ Type and tenure of housing ❑ Loss of units in assisted housing developments • Over - concentration of lower income households • Geological and topographical constraints In 1999, SCAG developed its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) based upon population, employment and household forecasts contained in the regional transportation plan from 1998 -2005. SCAG then makes an adjustment to allow for a certain number of vacant units to ensure adequate mobility and to replace units lost to demolition, conversion, or natural disaster. Finally, SCAG then makes a determination as to the number of units to be affordable to different income groups. Chart 2 -23 describes Moorpark's share of the region's future housing; its total allocation of 1,255 units and the relative breakdown by affordability level Approximately 33% of the RHNA must be affordable to lower income households Chart 2 -23: Moorpark's RHNA Allocation Very Low 00 -50 % <$34,250 269 21% Low 51 -80% <$50,200 155 12% Moderate 81 -120% <$82,200 383 31% Upper 120 %+ Above 448 36% Total 1,255 100% Source: Ventura Council of Governments, May 2, 2000. City of Moorpark 2 -21 Housing Element HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT E. Assisted Housing At -Risk of Conversion Existing housing that receives governmental assistance is often a significant source of affordable housing in many communities. Because of its significance, this section identifies publicly assisted rental housing in Moorpark, evaluates the potential to convert to market rates between 2000 and 2010, and analyzes the cost to preserve those units. Resources for preservation /replacement are described in Chapter 4 of the Element and housing programs to address preservation of these units are described in Chapter 5. 1. Assisted Housing Inventory Two government- assisted rental housing projects are located in Moorpark; however, neither project is at -risk of conversion to market -rate (Chart 2 -24). Tafoya Terrance, a 30 -unit public housing complex operated by the Ventura County Housing Authority, provides affordable rental housing for lower- income seniors. The Archstone Le Club apartment complex has a total of 370 rental units, of which 74 units are reserved for lower income households. The project was funded through multi - family housing bonds that were originally issued by the City of Moorpark. The bonds were purchased by the California Statewide Community Development Authority and have been refinanced. The bonds are not set to expire until 2029. Finally, the Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Estates was recently purchased through issuance of bonds, which require 20% of the units to be affordable to lower- income households. Chart 2 -24: Inventory of Assisted Units o eat W_ A737 odab Tota)i �>IV! ndr Ez [rat�rto r A�cir! Ventura County Tafoya Terrace 30 30 301 -br Housing --- Authority Archstone Le 74 312 2 -br Mortgage Club 3 -br Revenue Bond 2029 Villa Del 48 240 — Mortgage 2021 Arroyo Revenue Bond Source: Ventura County Housing Authority, 2000, Califomia Debt Advisory Commission, 2000. Although none of the projects are set to expire within the 2000 to 2010 planning period, the City has set forth a quantified objective to ensure that these units will remain affordable for the longest period of time. The Housing Plan describes the City's program for ensuring these units remain affordable to their targeted clients. City of Moorpark 2 -22 Housing Element ROUSING CONSTRAINTS 3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS The provision of adequate and affordable housing opportunities is an important goal of Moorpark. However, a variety of factors can encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of the City's housing stock. These include market mechanisms, government codes, market mechanisms, and physical and environmental constraints. This section addresses these potential constraints. A. Market Constraints Land costs, construction costs, and market financing contribute to the cost of housing and can potentially hinder the production of housing. Although many of these potential constraints are driven by market conditions, jurisdictions have some leverage in instituting policies and programs to remove or mitigate'these constraints. This section analyzes these constraints as well as the activities that a jurisdiction can undertake. Chapter 5 of this Element sets forth additional programs to address constraints. 1. Development Costs The costs of developing housing varies widely according to the type of home, with multi - family housing generally less costly to construct than single family homes. However, there is wide variation in costs within each construction type depending on the size of unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. Land costs will also vary considerably, depending on the location of the sites, whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. According to the Construction Industry Research Board, the construction cost for a typical new, single - family dwelling increased significantly over the past decade, averaging $60 to $90 per square foot in 1999. Custom homes cost in the higher range, while tract homes cost in the lower range. The average construction cost for multi- family construction varies from $50 to $85 per square foot, with underground parking or other amenities increasing the cost of construction. Typically, land is the largest cost component in the construction of new housing. The cost of unimproved land ranges significantly, depending upon whether the site is located in the hillsides, the valley floor, or the historic or central downtown area. According to Dataguick, the cost for unimproved land ranges from $3 per square foot for hillside lots, $5 per square foot for CPD zoned suitable for multi - family development, and up to $6 per square foot for residential land in the downtown area. Land costs include raw land as well as the costs associated with site preparation. However, because of Moorpark's unique environmental setting, most residential sites outside the downtown require grading, recompaction, and other improvements. These improvements are largely confined to single - family developments in the hillsides which are market rate and therefore do not constraint the City's ability to meet its 1998 -2005 RHNA. Section C further discusses the cost impact. City of Moorpark 3 -1 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Home Financing The availability of financing affects a person's ability to purchase or improve a home. Home owners looking for opportunities to improve their home must consider the interest rate (variable or fixed), the type of lender (conventional or government), as well as their overall return on investment. Therefore, the availability of financing affects a homeowner or landlord's decision to make investments in their home. Availability of Financing One measure of availability of financing can be found from analyzing lending data. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications for home purchases and improvements. HMDA data typically has a two -year delay before the data is released. Chart 3 -1 shows the percentage of loans that were "approved, "denied," and "other" loans that were withdrawn by the applicant or were incomplete. Home Purchase Loans. During 1998, 988 households applied for market -rate conventional home purchase (mortgage) loans in Moorpark. Private financial institutions accounted for over 90% of all home purchase loans (Chart 3 -1). As is typical in most communities, origination rates varied according to household income. For instance, origination rates increased from 70% for lower income households, to 72% for moderate - income, to 77% for upper income households. Chart 3 -1: Disposition of Home Loans Lower 156 70% 16% 14% Moderate 277 72% 10% 18% Upper 510 77% 9% 14% N.A. 45 42% 11% 47% Total 988 73% 11% 16% It Lower %fo�inpo ementaans Con�entionaC a' 13 38% 38% 24% Moderate 26 42% 38% 20% Upper 57 65% 26% 9% N.A. 4 75% 25% 0% Total 100 560% 30% 14% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 1998 1. Loans approved by the lender and accepted by the applicant. 2. Applications withdrawn, files closed for incompleteness, or applications approved for a loan but not accepted by the applicant. City of Moorpark 3 -2 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Home Improvement Loans: Compared to mortgage loans, there were far fewer applications for home improvement loans, as is often the case in most jurisdictions. Of the 117 applications, 100 were conventional home improvement loans, while 17 were government- assisted loans. Since household income is the major determinant in qualifying for a loan, the origination rate for home improvement loans also increased progressively with the income of the applicant. The overall origination rate for conventional home improvement loans was 56 %, as shown in Chart 3 -1. Comparison to Ventura County. In comparison to Ventura County, Moorpark has a higher percentage of originated loans and a lower rate of denials. For conventional home loans, the origination rate was 73% in Moorpark versus 69% in the County. Similarly, the origination rate for conventional home improvement loans was higher and the denial rate lower in Moorpark. In addition, the County had a higher percentage of loans in the other" category, which includes applications withdrawn, files closed due to incompleteness, or applications approved but not accepted. Chart 3 -2: Loan Disposition: Moorpark and Ventura County Source Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 1998. Interest Rates Interest rates can also impact the ability to construct, purchase or improve a home. For instance, consider the median home price in Moorpark was $253,500 in 1999. Also assume a 10% down payment, 30 -year mortgage, and standard deductions for utilities, property taxes, and home insurance. If the interest rate varies from 8% to 10 %, the annual income needed to qualify for a loan varies from $78,000 to $91,000. Although interest rates are beyond local control, cities can provide downpayment assistance to make homes more affordable to low and moderate income households. City of Moorpark 3 -3 Housing Element City 73% 56% Originated County 69% 54% City 11% 30% Denied County 11% 27% Other City 16% 14% County 20% 19% Source Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 1998. Interest Rates Interest rates can also impact the ability to construct, purchase or improve a home. For instance, consider the median home price in Moorpark was $253,500 in 1999. Also assume a 10% down payment, 30 -year mortgage, and standard deductions for utilities, property taxes, and home insurance. If the interest rate varies from 8% to 10 %, the annual income needed to qualify for a loan varies from $78,000 to $91,000. Although interest rates are beyond local control, cities can provide downpayment assistance to make homes more affordable to low and moderate income households. City of Moorpark 3 -3 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS B. Government Constraints Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and in particular, the provision of affordable housing. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other issues may represent potential constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing. This section- discusses potential governmental constraints in Moorpark. 1. Land Use Controls The Land Use Element of Moorpark's General Plan sets forth policies for guiding local development. These policies, together with existing zoning regulations, establish the amount of land to be allocated for different uses. In Moorpark, over 54% of the acreage within the City is designated for residential use, with an additional 11 % of the acreage designated as specific plan areas. Chart 3 -3 below details the major land use categories and types of homes permitted. The Zoning Code allows for a range of residential uses in different settings. Residential uses are allowed in more agricultural settings, rural settings in the hillsides, and in urban settings surrounding the downtown area. Chart 3 -3: Residential Land Use Categories Open Space Open Space (O -S) and Agricultural Agricultural Exclusive (A -E) Rural- Agricultural (R -A) Rural Rural Exclusive (R -E) Residential Single - Family Estate (R -O) Single- Family Res. (R -1) Urban Two - Family Res. (R -2) Residential Residential Planned Development (RPD) Single- family detached homes within a large open space area. Single- family detached home within a large agricultural area Single- family homes on 1 acre lots designed to maintain a rural setting Single- family homes on smaller lots designed to maintain a rural setting Single- family homes or cluster developments in a rural setting. Attached /detached single - family homes in a subdivision setting Single family detached units, two units, or one duplex per lot Attached and detached single - family and multi - family units Source: Land Use Element, 1992, Moorpark Zoning Code, 1998 City of Moorpark 3 -4 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Specific Plan Areas Moorpark has three Specific Plans areas: Hitch Ranch (SP -1), Moorpark Highlands (SP -2), and the Downtown Specific Plan. These Specific Plans have been designated to comprehensively address a variety of unique land uses (e.g. topography, viewshed, and circulation) and provide focused planning and development standards tailored to the unique characteristics or purpose of a particular area. Chart 3 -4 identifies the residential land uses for each Specific Plan. Hitch Ranch Specific Plan: The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (SP -1), in the northwest quadrant of the City, consists of 404 acres, of which over half of the acreage is planned for 415 to 605 residential units. The project contains four single- family residential development areas, with lots ranging from 4,000 to 7,000 square feet and an area for estate lots. The Specific Plan includes an affordable housing component consisting of a very high - density residential area of 11 acres with 100 housing units. This project entered into the planning and environmental stage as of 2000. Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan: The Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan, located in the northern part of Moorpark, consists of 445 acres. Of the total acreage, 35% is designated for residential use. Approximately 570 single - family homes will be built in this Specific Plan area and 25 of those will be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households for a period of 30 years. The Specific Plan has been approved by the City Council and development implementation is underway. Downtown Specific Plan: The Downtown Specific Plan contains High Street, Old Town, several residential neighborhoods, and the downtown commercial area. Within this area, residential zones permits up to 6 dwelling units per acre, while the Residential Planned Development zone permits up to 20 units per acre under land consolidation criteria. Housing development that has occurred in the Downtown Specific Plan over the past number of years has consisted of infill housing projects, including single - family residential, duplexes, and one senior housing project. Chart 3 -4: Specific Plan Residential Land Use Summary City of Moorpark 3 -5 Housing Element Low Density 0 0 0 0 Medium Low Density 90 71 37 28 Medium Density 362 105 335 104 High Density 53 15 96 16 Very High Density 100 11 102 9 Total 605 202 570 157 Status Planned Approved Sources: Hitch Ranch, Specific Plan No. 1, 1999 Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan 1999 City of Moorpark 3 -5 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 2. Residential Development Standards Moorpark regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through the Zoning Code. Zoning regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents as well as implement the policies of the City's General Plan. The Zoning Code also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Chart 3 -5 below summarizes the most pertinent development standards of the non - Specific Plan areas of Moorpark. Chart 3 -5: Residential Development Standards Development Standard�grultural cc Rurat Residential iJrhan Res�d`entEal Building Standards Density Range (du /ac) 1/4 1/10 1 1 -2 3-4 4 -6 7 -12 12 -15(') Min. Unit Size n/aY n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Max. Height _ 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 35' Lot Standards Min. Lot Size (Acres) 40 10 1 Y 1/2 1/4 1/6 1/14 (1)� Max. Lot coverage ' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Lot Dimensions n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Building Setbacks Min. Front yard 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20'� Min. Side yard 10' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Min. Rear yard 15' 15' - 15' 15' 15' 15' 15'20' Park Standard -� Local Standard 5 acres /per 1.000 people or 120% of appraised value of land Single_Family Unit 0.018 acres per dwelling unit Multi - Family Unit 0.100 acres per dwelling unit T Parking Standards Single Family 2 covered s aces in a ara e Multi - Family Units 2 covered spaces/unit one in garage) + %2 s ace /unit for guests Mobile Homes 2 covered spaces/unit +'/4 s ace /unit for quest parking Source: City of Moorpark Zoning Code, 1998. ` RPD permit required for any development that creates five or more separate residential lots in the R -A, R -E, R -O, R -1, and R -2 zones. 1. Density can be approved up to 30 units per acre per RPD permit. n /a: Residential development standard not specified in the Zoning Code City of Moorpark 3 -6 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Facilitating Affordability Moorpark employs a variety of tools that facilitate and encourage the development of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population The two primary tools are the density bonus program and the inclusionary /in -lieu fee program These programs are employed alone or in tandem to facilitate and encourage the construction of affordable housing for very low, low, or moderate income households ■ Density Bonuses: Moorpark has adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance for setting aside affordable units. Variations of the density bonus program are tailored for different portions of the community: Citywide. The City offers a standard 25% density bonus citywide with an additional reduction in residential site development standards not to exceed 20 %, and reduced architectural design standards for affordable proiects. Downtown. In the downtown, where density is restricted to 7 units per acre a progressive density bonus program of up to 100% is granted for merging lots from 7,000 square feet up to 28,000 square feet. Hillsides: The Hillside Management Ordinance also allows for density transfers and clustering of units in slope areas which exceed 20% grade in order to compensate for land which is not developable. lnclusionary Requirements: Development agreements are an important way to encourage a variety of housing types which are affordable to all economic segments of the community. The City requires 15% of units constructed in redevelopment areas to be affordable to lower- income households and has a 1.0% goal for all other areas. If a developer cannot meet all of the affordable housing requirements, the developer is charged an in lieu fee. As an example, the 312 -unit Archstone complex was required to build 62 lower income units (including 25 very low- income units). Pacific Communities was required to provide 22 low income units, but chose to pay $900,000 in fees to cover their very low- income requirement. Over the 2000 -2005 period the City should accrue $4 to $5 million in in -lieu fees. The use of funds for new construction or rehabilitation is set forth in Chapter 5 of this Housing Element. Combination: Oftentimes, density bonus provisions can be an effective means in coniunction with inclusionary requirements to facilitate affordable housing development. In order to ensure the provision of affordable housing the City of Moorpark has granted density increases for proiects that are required to provide inclusionary units or pay in -lieu fees The Archstone proiect was granted higher densities (16.2 du /acre), reduced parking standards, and reduced setbacks in return for setting aside 20% of the units for lower income households. City of Moorpark 3 -7 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of housing for all economic segments of the population. Housing types include standard single - family and multi - family housing opportunities, factory-built housing, mobile homes as well as housing to meet special housing needs associated with shelters, transitional housing, and farm labor housing. Moorpark permits all types of housing required by State law pursuant to different levels of review. Zone clearance and administrative permits require only the approval of the Director of Community Development. A conditional use permit requires a public hearing and clearance by the Planning Commission. RPD clearance requires Planning Commission or City Council approval as noted below in Chart 3 -6. Each of these permits is described under subsection 4. "Development Permit Procedures." Chart 3 -6: Housing Types Permitted in Residential Zones ,, �� �� Resitlent�aiUses �� r C� ; Rural Res�dent�at L `" tlrban�Resrtlent�aC ' � - at�n Residential Use Single- family zc zc zc zc zc zc rpd* Duplexes/Tri /Quad zc rpd* Multi- family rpd* Mobile Homes cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* Second Units ap ap ap ap ap ap ap Group Housing Boarding house cup cup* cup* cup* cup* Transitional Housing cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* Emergency Shelters cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* Farm Labor Housing cup* cup* Special Need Housing Affordable or Senior rpd ** rpd ** rpd ** Small LCF (6 of less) zc zc zc zc zc zc rpd ** Large LCF (over 6) cup* cup* cup* cup* cup* Source: City of Moorpark Zoning Code, 1998. Notes: * Planning Commission Approved: ** City Council Approved ZC: zoning clearance; CUP: conditional use permit; and AP: administrative permit City of Moorpark 3 -8 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Residential Uses Other than Single - Family Homes In addition to single- family housing opportunities, the City of Moorpark also offers a range of housing opportunities available to all economic segments of the community. In particular, housing opportunities are available to persons earning lower incomes, seniors, disabled persons, and other more vulnerable members of the community. Multi- Family Housing: Moorpark's Zoning Code provides for multi - family housing in R -2 zones and Residential Planned Development zones, which allow up to a density of 30 dwelling units per acre (assuming a density bonus and additional incentives). The provision of multi - family housing in Residential Planned Development zones facilitates the availability of lower cost housing opportunities. Second Units: Second units are allowed in all residential zoned lots that are 10,000 square feet or larger in size, pursuant to an administrative permit from the City. However, the second unit must meet the minimum setbacks, lot coverage, height restrictions, and other development standards for the primary residence unit. Since 1998, six second units have been approved in Moorpark. Mobile Homes: Moorpark has 305 mobile homes within the community. Mobile homes are permitted in all residential zones subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City Planning Commission. The Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program limits space rent increases and the Hardship Waiver Program provides a waiver for tenants if a space rent increase results in economic hardship. Farmworker Housing: Farmworker housing is permitted, subject to a conditional use permit, in five districts: Open Space, Agricultural Exclusive, Rural Agricultural, Industrial Park, and Limited Industrial zones. In 1990, the City provided mortgage assistance and reduced fees to facilitate the development of Villa Campesina, a 62- unit, sweat equity project for local farmworkers and lower income residents. Residential Care Facilities: Moorpark complies with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act by allowing, by right, State- authorized, certified, or licensed family care homes, foster homes, or group homes serving six or fewer persons in all residential zones. Facilities serving seven or more people are permitted in all residential zones, subject to a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Homeless Shelters and Transitional Housing: Emergency shelters and transitional housing are part of the Ventura County regional continuum of care to address the needs of the homeless population. The Moorpark Zoning Code treats emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing as boarding homes and permits them in most residential zone districts, subject to an approved CUP. City of Moorpark 3 -9 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 4. Development Review Process. The City has designed various development procedures to ensure that residential development proceeds in an orderly manner and contributes to the community. The City utilizes a range of mechanisms to approve residential proiects based on the size, complexity, and potential impact. The process is summarized below. Zone Clearance: The zone clearance is applied to proiects that are allowed by right. The zone clearance is used to ensure that the Proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and meets all applicable requirements of the City's zoning code, including design and site review. The zone clearance is a ministerial permit granted by the director of community development without a public hearing_ Chart 3 -7: Development Review Process Project Submittal Zone Admin. Planned or Clearance Permit Conditional Development Design Design Design Review Review Review Administrative Permit. Some projects may require an No Public Office Public administrative permit, such as Hearing Hearing Hearing second unit developments. These developments typically require a greater level of review because the 2 -3 days 1 month 3 -6 months unit must also be compatible with adiacent uses and require a greater Source: City of Moorpark, 2000. level of zoning review. Second unit developments is an example of a proiect that requires an administrative permit The administrative zone clearance is granted by the director of community development particular uses not allowed by right. Development projects are subiect to meet site design review. The applicant for such a use shall be approved or denied through a public hearing process before the applicable decision - making authority which is either the Planning Commission or the City Council. For residential developments however, the appropriate hearing body is the Planning Commission. by the planning commission. Generally, the applicant must demonstrate that the proiect is (1) consistent with the intent and provisions of the general plan and zoning code, (2) compatible with the character of surrounding development (3) would not be obnoxious, harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or use and (4) would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety welfare or convenience. Development proiects must also go through design review. City of Moorpark 3 -10 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Development Review Timeframes State law requires that communities work toward improving the efficiency of their building permit and review processes by providing "one- stop" processing, thereby eliminating the unnecessary duplication of effort. The Permit Streamlining Act helped reduce governmental delays by limiting permit processing time to one year and requiring agencies to specify the information needed for an acceptable application. Chart 3 -8 summarizes the approximate time frame for reviewing projects from pre - application development review phase through a general plan amendment, environmental review, and through public hearings if necessary. Chart 3 -8: Development Review Time Frames Permit evrew' Time Frame 'frmeframe k Reason.for'Di re... � .. Pre - Application Develop. Review 1 to 4 mos. Complexity; special study needs Variance 2 to 6 mos. Complexity; level of review Zone Clearance Immediate — 3 days Scale of project General Plan Amend. 3 —12 mos. Complexity; level of review Administrative Permit 1 month Completeness of Application Planned Development 3 to 6 mos. Scale of project/Completeness Subdivision Tract Map 6 —12 mos. Environmental /design issues Conditional Use Permit 6 -9 mos. Scale of project; environmental Environmental Review 6 -12 mos. Scale — complexity of project Public Hearing 7 -24 mos. I Complexity of project Source: City of Moorpark, August 2000. The timeframe for reviewing and approving permit applications zone changes variances, conditional use permits and other discretionary approvals varies on a case -by -case basis. Developments in Moorpark typically range from a single home to a large scale oroiect (100 homes) to even larger Specific Plan proiects The time frame needed to review proiects depends on the location potential environmental constraints, the need to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure and public facilities, and the overall impact of large -scale developments on the community. For larger development proiects subiect to the residential planned permit the City allows concurrent processing of a variety of actions (e.g., general plan amendment and zone change) to help expedite the processing of development applications .City of Moorpark 3 -11 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 5. RPD Process and Design Review The Residential Planned Development (RPD) and Design Review processes are important components in the development approval process The RPD and design review process work in tandem to facilitate and encourage proiects which address the housing needs of the community and also are designed in a manner which preserves and contributes to the quality of the living environment in Moorpark The RPD and design review process begins with a ioint submittal of an application to the Community Development Department. Asa first step -City staff meet with the developer to discuss the project and upon request by the developer provide appropriate directions and examples of projects that meet City design standards Examples may include appropriate examples from the Downtown Specific Plan design guidelines or from other similar approved proiects in the community. Once the project schematics are completed, S staff review the application to make sure it is complete, and then prepare a written report assessing the overall design and consistency with the City's development standards The Planning Commission then reviews the project to ensure it complies with the following findings: • Is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's general plan and appropriate zoning chapter; • Is compatible with the character of surrounding development; • Would not be obnoxious, harmful or impair the utility of neighboring property • Would not be detrimental to the public interest health safety, welfare and • Is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of surrounding properties. The RPD process has resulted at times in lower densities for single - family projects particularly for hillside developments subject to environmental constraints. With family projects built at or above maximum allowable densities include the following: Archstone (17.1 du /ac). Urban West (16.8 dulac). and Westland (14.1 du /ac) also grants maximum densities to allow a developer to generate additional rental revenue from the proiect to offset the costs of providing affordable units. Along snitt to neighborhoods, where developments must be compatible with adjacent uses. Therefore, the City is proposing a new program to develop and adopt design guidelines that are applicable on a citywide basis by Year 2003 City of Moorpark 3 -12 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS City of Moorpark 3 -12b Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 6. Fees and Exactions Moorpark collects fees and exactions from developments to cover the costs of processing permits and providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to new development. Fees are calculated based on the average cost of processing a particular type of case. Chart 3 -9 summarizes planning, development, and other fees charged for new residential development. Chart 3 -9: Development Review Fees N/A = Not applicable Source: City of Moorpark, March 2000. Moorpark's development fees are considered typical for the Ventura County area. The City Council has the authority to reduce or waive local fees on a case -by -case basis. For affordable or senior housing, the City Council at its discretion may award developers with incentives such as the waiving of fees and other concessions that may result in identifiable cost reductions. For the development of Villa Campesina, the City reduced development fees for Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation in order to ensure the project's affordability to lower income households. City of Moorpark 3 -13 Housing Element Multi- Famill Planning Fees Pre Screening for General Plan Amendment $1,760 General Plan Amendment $2,200 Residential Planned Development (SF or MF) $2,200 plus $9.55 /unit Tentative Tract Map $2,728 plus $67 per lot or unit Administrative Clearance (Minor Variance) $264 Variance — Existing Single- family Residential $440 Administrative Permit $264 Conditional Use Permit — Residential Uses $1,584 Zone Change $2,464 Zoning Code Amendment $1,760 Development Impact Fees Fire Protection Facilities Fee $233 per unit $171 per unit Police Facilities Fee $677 per unit $677 per unit Calleguas Water District Fee $1,351 per unit $1,001 per unit Water (Waterworks District #1) N/A per unit $635 per unit Flood Control — Land Development Fee $601 per unit $601 per unit Sewer Connection $2,500 per unit $2,000 per unit Library Facilities Fee $461 per unit $298 per unit School Fees $3.59 per sq. ft. $3.59 per sq. ft. N/A = Not applicable Source: City of Moorpark, March 2000. Moorpark's development fees are considered typical for the Ventura County area. The City Council has the authority to reduce or waive local fees on a case -by -case basis. For affordable or senior housing, the City Council at its discretion may award developers with incentives such as the waiving of fees and other concessions that may result in identifiable cost reductions. For the development of Villa Campesina, the City reduced development fees for Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation in order to ensure the project's affordability to lower income households. City of Moorpark 3 -13 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 7. Building Codes and Enforcement A variety of building and safety codes, while adopted for the purposes of preserving public health and safety, and ensuring the construction of safe and decent housing, have the potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance. These include building codes, accessibility standards, specific codes to reduce hazards, and other related ordinances. The following briefly highlight the impact of these standards upon the maintenance and development of housing. Uniform Building Code. Moorpark has adopted the Uniform Building Code which establishes standards and requires inspections at stages of construction to ensure code compliance. The UBC prescribes minimum insulation requirements to reduce noise levels as well as energy efficiency devices Although these standards increase housing costs and may impact the viability of rehabilitating older properties which must be brought up to current code standards the intent of the codes is to provide structurally sound safe and efficient housing. American Disabilities Act. The City's buildinq code requires new residential construction to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ADA requires design standards for buildings consisting of 4 or more units (if such building has an elevator) or in ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four or more units. These requirements include the incorporation of: (1) adaptive design features for the interior of the unit; (2) accessible public use and common use portions: and (3) sufficiently wider doors to allow wheelchair access National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System As of January 1998 all new development in Moorpark except for developments of four or fewer lots which are zoned to permit only single- family use must comply with the conditions and requirements of the NPDES permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit or any discretionary land use approval or permit the applicant must submit a storm water pollution prevention and control plan and implement Best Management Practices in accordance with state and local regulations Other Building Codes. Because of the unique topographic geological and other environmental issues associated with the immediate area development in Moorpark is subiect to compliance with other building codes and regulations These codes include the Public Resource Code, Uniform Fire Code and local codes with respect to seismic safety, amonq other codes These codes require site modification, improved construction design or site improvements to mitigate Potential hazards described in Subsection C of this chapter. Code Enforcement. The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing regulations governing maintenance of all buildings and property. The City has two full -time code enforcement officers. One officer focuses in central Moorpark, where much of the older housing stock is located. The Division works in conjunction with the rehabilitation program to identify homes that may benefit from rehabilitation services. To facilitate correction of code violations, the Code Enforcement staff refers property owners to the City's rehabilitation program. City of Moorpark 3 -14 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 8. Infrastructure and Site Improvements Adequate infrastructure, services, and public facilities are important components of new development. In order for residential development to not adversely impact the City's service system levels, the City must ensure that various capital improvement plans and adequate financing mechanisms are in place to provide essential services. The following discussion details the adequacy of the city's infrastructure system. Capital tg,$. The City has mechanisms in place to address capital improvement proiects needed to facilitate development itvwide 4 -the dew R. To provide needed transportation improvements for developments +e the deWRtGWR . the City has instituted an 6es Angeles Avenue ^�,-ea- CeRtribetiee -area of contribution r auirement and appropriate fees to pay for circulation and system improvements This provides the City sufficient funds to construct transportation improvements needed to serve developments #i- Drainage. The primary community drainage facility is the Arroyo Simi Channel. The Army Corp of Engineers and local Ventura County Flood Control District is F 'Eli a Irx}OFeyemeRtS to the fleed nh Rne l "A—y- Cimi ' Al n +r+ ..F the J)F0j--4 e°yc e#ine aside right of way to complete the proiects to reduce flooding in parts of Moorpark Until the fleed ch Improvements are completed developers must continue to pay for additional site Improvements necessary to protect the property from flood damage The Particular tvpe and cost of site improvements are discussed in Section C entitled Environmental Constraints. • Sewage Treatment Ventura County Waterworks District No.- 1 encompasses 19.500 acres and serves 30,000 customers in Moorpark and continuous unincorporated areas. The District owns operates and maintains the Moorpark Ine- — -- - - - ` - - T . . 1. - .. 1 -- - - - - vuu .. tea�al.�ty w v V I I IUU - Ju70 i ys4i igi utan [ne average Tlow In j kyy i ne plant expansion is intended to accommodate future development in Moorpark Water Supply. Ventura County Waterworks District #1 provides water. The District receives water from five groundwater wells imports the remainder from the Metropolitan Water District and Calleguas Municipal Water District and treats water at the Jenson Plant in Granada Hills The District supplies 11-50-0--acre feet of water annually 75% of which is imported The District foresees sufficient water capacity to meet future housing needs in Moorpark — Site Improvements. -New residential construction will occur where infrastructure is in place and is adequate or in specific plan areas where adequate public �sreervii'c,�e,,s, ,amend} �fa�ciilitieys are required pursuant to developer agreements ��+�epeFs GeRStFWGt site impgwemeRtG d/nr pay rare a GhaFes tnTM4 improvements maintain the quality of life desired by City residents and are consistent with the Citv's adopted General Plan goals for service standards to City of Moorpark 3 -15 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Taken together, the City has provisions in place to ensure that adequate regional and site specific infrastructure, services, and public facilities will be in place to allow development of housing commensurate with its regional housing need allocation. Through a combination of developer agreements and fees, there will be adequate infrastructure, facilities and services in place to address the 1998 -2005 RHNA. 9. Growth Management Growth management has long been a concern in Ventura County. In 1999, the City adopted the "SOAR" Initiative, the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources. This Initiative originated from public concern that rapid urban encroachment over the past decade was threatening agricultural, open space, watershed, sensitive wetlands, and riparian areas vital to Ventura County. Voters thus passed an initiative to direct future population growth into incorporated areas where infrastructure is in place. This initiative amended the General Plan as of January 1998. Until December 31, 2020, the City shall restrict urbanized uses to within the urban restriction boundary (CURB), which is generally coterminous with the City's Sphere of Influence. The City Council cannot grant or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, special use permit, building permit or other ministerial or discretionary entitlement inconsistent with the General Plan and CURB line established by the SOAR Initiative. Generally, the City Council may not amend the CURB, without voter approval, unless specific procedures and purposes are followed. If for any reason, sufficient land resources are not available to address the RHNA, the SOAR Initiative still allows the City of Moorpark to satisfy its 1998 -2005 RHNA. This is because pursuant to the SOAR Initiative, the City Council is expressly authorized to amend the CURB line to comply with state law regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community. Thus, the City Council may amend the CURB, provided that no more than 20 acres is brought within the CURB for this purpose annually. Prior to this, the Council must make the following findings: ➢ the land is immediately adjacent to existing compatibly developed areas and that adequate services have or will be provided for such development; ➢ the proposed development will address the highest priority need identified (e.g., the provision of lower income housing to satisfy the RHNA); and ➢ there is no existing residentially land available within the CURB and it is not reasonably feasible to redesignate land within the CURB for such purposes. The SOAR Initiative is not expected to prevent the City of Moorpark from meeting its RHNA requirements pursuant to State law. This is because of the following: (1) the City has a large reserve of vacant land within its corporate limits; (2) the City makes wide use of development agreements to require inclusionary units or in -lieu fees; and (3) the SOAR has specific amendment procedures to accommodate the lower - income affordability goals of the RHNA. Therefore, SOAR will not deter the City from satisfying its obligations for affordable housing required by the 1998 -2005 RHNA. City of Moorpark 3 -16 Housing Element d HOUSING CONSTRAINTS C. Environmental Constraints Environmental constraints related to seismic activity, geology /topographical, flooding potential, or other environmental issues can impact the cost associated with the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. This section briefly outlines these constraints. A more detailed discussion is included in the City's Safety Element. 1. Fire Hazard Constraints. Building, wildland, and earthquake - induced fires represent significant fire hazards in Moorpark and its Sphere of Influence. Fire potential is typically greatest in the late summer months, when dry vegetation combined with offshore dry Santa Ana winds coexist. The Ventura County Fire District classifies areas within unincorporated Moorpark as a High Fire Hazard Area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention also classifies areas of unincorporated Moorpark as having the potential for wild land fires. The City enforces state and local codes to help reduce fire hazards. The Public Resources Code requires road standards for fire equipment access signage for streets and buildings, minimum private water reserves, and fuel breaks. The City's Municipal Code requires developers to use fire resistant materials in new construction, including roofing, exterior walls, under floor areas, architectural proiections and ventilations std The Uniform Fire Code specifies minimum fire flow standards for homes located in fire hazard zones while the City Municipal Code requires buffer zones for residential development in fire hazard zones. 2. Seismic Activity. The Moorpark Area is potentially subject to seismic hazards. The southern part of Moorpark is crossed by the Simi /Santa Rosa Fault and is designated an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone. The northern portion of the city is crossed by the Oak Ridge fault zone. Other local faults within five miles of the Moorpark Area include the Santa Susana and San Cayetano as well as the San Andreas fault. Faults with the area are capable of earthquakes with magnitudes up seven. Seismic shaking can cause liquefaction, soil settlement, slope failure, deformation of sidehill fills, ridgetop fissuring and shattering, and other hazards. Most of the lowlands in the Moorpark area have a high liquefaction and /or settlement potential because of the shallow ground water. The northern portion of the Moorpark Area of Interest would be most vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure due to the steep terrain and presence of weak sedimentary bedrock. To mitigate seismic hazards the City may require enhanced project review, improved construction design, site improvement, and other measures. For instance, proiects in a State - delineated Seismic Hazard Zone must be evaluated by a certified Engineering Geologist, a Registered Civil Engineer, or both. The City's. Buildinq Code may require modified foundation design drainage devices improved plywood design or hold down - connectors, or modified height to length ratios to address hazards. The City may also require removal and recompaction of low density soils removal of excess ground water, in -situ ground densification or other measures City of Moorpark 3 -17 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS 3. Topographical and Geotechnical Constraints. The predominance of steep hillsides and slopes in northern Moorpark present the threat of landslide activity. For instance, landslide activity has been evident in parts of the Gabbert Canyon stream area, a large slide complex south of Arroyo Las Posas, the south flank of Big Mountain, the Arroyo Simi, and Las Posas Hills. Landslides could also impact developments adjacent to the mountain front. Although the occurrence of landslides is relatively infrequent, it nonetheless presents a constraint to development. Moorpark's abundance of hillsides, while constraining the types of development, also provides aesthetic relief to the viewscape from virtually every location in the city. Therefore, the City has enacted a hillside management to preserve the unique topographical features (e.g., grades, ridgelines, prominent landforms, viewsheds), natural drainage patterns, significant riparian areas, and natural open space areas. A hillside area is defined as property containing slope areas of 20% grade or greater. Proposed hillside development must also undergo additional proiect review to ensure that the development and uses are compatible with the topography. As part of the proiect approval process, the applicant must submit the following documents: (1) slope map and analysis, (2) grading plans, (3) visual impact analysis, (4) pedestrian circulation and trails plans, and (5) technical analyses of soils, geology, hydrology, biology, and other unique conditions of the subiect area. The City must sign off on all documents to ensure that compliance is achieved. 4. Hydrological Constraints. Flooding is the primary hydrological constraint that affects housing development within the City of Moorpark. As noted in the Safety Element, the Moorpark Area is drained by a system of streams that are part of the Calleguas Creek watershed. Calleguas Creek is locally referred to as the Arroyo Simi. Most of the Little Simi Valley along and north of the Arroyo Simi is within the 500 -year floodplain. Floods that impact Moorpark are typically of shorter duration, high peak volumes and high velocity. Damaging floods have occurred in the past along the Calleguas Creek Drainage, which includes the Arroyo Simi. The Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFD) controls the watercourses in the Moorpark Area and regional flood control system. An extensive municipal storm drain network operated by Moorpark serves the urbanized portions of the city. The VCFD has constructed a levee along a segment of the Arroyo Simi and along a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The VCFD also maintains sophisticated flood warning systems in critical flood hazard areas, such as Calleguas Creek. Existing flood control structures provide a certain level of protection from uncontrolled flooding, but significant deficiencies in infrastructure still exist. Because of the potential for flood damage, the Moorpark Municipal Code (Section 15.254) sets forth flood protection measures which affect the construction of any structure within a special flood hazard zone. These include requirements for the following: (1) enhanced anchoring of the structure; (2) use of construction materials and methods resistant to flood damage; and (3) special elevation of the structure one foot above the 100 year flood plain or appropriate flood proofing. Additionally, Moorpark participates in FEMA's national flood insurance program. City of Moorpark 3 -18 Housing Element HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Cost Impacts Development in many areas of Moorpark requires special considerations to mitigate environmental factors. Estimating the cost of complying with building codes federal and state environmental laws, and the local permitting process is difficult to estimate The depth of review, mitigation measures, and the associated cost are often site specific and cannot be estimated until a proiect is proposed. Moreover, many of the additional measures are required by State law and outside the iurisdiction of the City. Although there is no typical case, knowledgeable developers and city officials have indicated that general cost estimates are as follows: • Flood Insurance: Assuming a new home is elevated one foot above the 100 year flood plain the cost is $3.50 per $1,000 for the first $50,000 of coverage and $0.80 per $1,000 for additional coverage up to $200,000. Therefore a residential structure insured for $250,000 would cost $335 annually. • Hillside Grading: City officials estimate that grading and infrastructure improvements for hillside developments can add up to $100,000 per acre — which is at least the amount of unimproved land. Additional environmental review may be required if sensitive species or plant communities are found. • Seismic Issues: Mitigation of seismic hazards depends upon site conditions type of construction proiect proposed, soil composition and water table level Based on recent proiects, structural reinforcement adds 2 -5% onto construction costs while soil remediation may cost up to approximately $50,000 per acre Although building standards and review processes raise the cost of development these codes do not necessarily constrain the City's ability to facilitate and encourage the production of housing commensurate with the 1998 -2005 RHNA For instance much of the hillside development occurs on significantly larger lots These homes are already priced at market levels and are affordable to upper income households Therefore, environmental hazards do constrain single- family home development Moderate - income housing opportunities are located primarily in central Moorpark and may require protections against flooding and seismic - induced liquefaction Flood Proofing adds a relatively insignificant cost to new construction Protection of liquefaction is the primary cost adding 2% to 5% upon normal construction costs Since the City has already met its RHNA requirements for moderate- income housing environmental factors are not a constraint to the moderate - income housing goals Finally, most of the multi - family development in Moorpark is occurring in Old Town where flooding and liquefaction constraints are the greatest Several developments (e.g., Archstone, LT Development and others) with a substantial number of units set aside as affordable to lower- income households are currently proceeding forward with design modifications to address anv potential environmental hazards Thus environmental factors do not circumscribe the City's ability to address its RHNA City of Moorpark 3 -19 Housing EIement Fairview Fault ....... ...I ........................... &WO- _ e � � A � k33 • Source: Earth Consultants International —' City Boundary Landslide Constraints Definite or probable landslide Questionable landslide Flooding Constraints Areas within 100 -year flood zone Areas with a less severe risk of flooding (between 100- and 500 -year flood zones, flooding with average depths of less than one foot, contributing drainage area is less than one square mile, and /or protected by levee from the 100 -year flood) 1*� I I I 1 -1 North 0 1 2 miles Cam us Park Dr. ••• OV Earthquake Fault Constraints Fault considered active, with the potential for surface rupture Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary Fault, solid where well located, dashed where approximate, dotted where concealed Indicates additional uncertainty Figure 1 Environmental Constraints City of Moorpark 3 -20 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES 4. HOUSING RESOURCES This section analyzes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Moorpark. This includes an evaluation of the availability of land resources, the City's ability to satisfy its share of the region's future housing needs, the financial resources available to support the provision of affordable housing, and the administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City's housing programs. A. RHNA Compliance State law requires cities to demonstrate that they encourage and facilitate housing production commensurate with their share of the region's future growth from 1998 -2005. The City's assigned share is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Therefore, an important component of the Housing Element is the identification of suitable sites to accommodate housing for each affordability level of the RHNA. 1. RHNA Requirement As discussed in Chapter 2, SCAG and Ventura Council of Government have assigned a portion of the region's future need for housing to each jurisdiction in Ventura County. Moorpark's share of the region's future housing need is 1,255 new housing units from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005. Moorpark's final RHNA allocation was finalized by State HCD in December 2000. The City's 1,255 unit housing allocation is divided into four affordability categories. The affordability distribution of new units is derived from the household income distribution of households in Moorpark in 1990 plus a fair share adjustment decided by SCAG. Pursuant to HCD's communique with SCAG dated October 5. 1999_ jurisdictions within the SCAG region are required to find sites commensurate with that portion of the RHNA which exceeds the replacement requirement. Chart 4 -1 summarizes the City's regional housing needs allocation as determined by SCAG and the Ventura Council of Governments. Chapter 2 provides greater detail on the methodology used to calculate Moorpark's RHNA. Chart 4 -1: Regional Housing Needs Share for Moorpark In corn .Titre old fvta Rep lace rnen I' Cmpone " ... 10 Very Low 50% or less of CMFI 269 25 Low Income 51 % to 80% of CMFI 155 6 142 Moderate 81 % to 120% of CMFI 383 14 M Upper Income Over 120% of CMFI 448 17 4-3-1 Tota 1 1,255 47 1,?Q$ Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2001. Affordability distribution of replacement calculation follows SCAG income distribution City of Moorpark 41 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Options for Compliance State housing element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that "adequate sites" will be made available over the planning period to facilitate and encourage a sufficient level of new housing production. Jurisdictions must also demonstrate that appropriate zoning and development standards, services and facilities will be in place to facilitate and encourage housing commensurate with their share of the region's housing needs (Government Code, Section 65583(c)(1)). The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allows jurisdictions to count four types of credits toward meeting their RHNA allocation. These methods and their applicability for Moorpark are described below and discussed later. 1. Actual Production. Jurisdictions could count the number of new units built during the planning period of 1998 -2005 toward their RHNA. New housing units include both those built and occupied (issued a certificate of occupancy) since January. 1, 1998. 2. Rehabilitation of Units. Under AB438, cities can count up to 25% of its RHNA for the rehabilitation of qualified substandard units that would otherwise be demolished. However, the stringent nature of the regulations underpinning AB438 have, for practical purposes, made this option impractical and too costly for the vast majority of jurisdictions in the region. 3. Preservation of Affordable Units. AB438 also authorizes jurisdictions to count a portion of the affordable units which would otherwise revert to market rents but are preserved through committed assistance from the jurisdiction. However, since no project is currently at -risk of imminent conversion from 2000 through 2010, this option is not applicable for Moorpark. 4. Available Land for Development. HCD also allows cities to count potential residential production on suitable sites within a community. To that end, the Housing Element must inventory the amount of land suitable for residential development, including vacant and underutilized sites, and analyze the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The City of Moorpark will facilitate and encourage housing production to address its share of the region's housing need through the following means: (1) Housing production and site capacity on residentially -zoned land; (2) Housing production and site capacity on commercially -zoned land; (3) Alternative housing options (e.g. second unit and replacement housing); and (4) Use of in -lieu fees collected to support affordable housing purposes City of Moorpark 4-2 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES 2. Housing Production r.,.,.,Gity on Residential 1--and To address the RHNA, the City can count housing units that are built on /or after January 1, 1998 and before June 31, 2005 towards the Regional Housing Needs requirement. According to City building records, Moorpark has well over 2,400 new residential units that are being built on residential -zoned land and over 1,500 unit capacity on commercial land. This section details these production credits. Residential Land. Single- family homes are being built primarily within six planning areas, except for a few scattered sites within the downtown, and are affordable to upper income households due to construction costs and larger lot sizes. However, single - family homes built on the smaller lots in the central and older downtown area are _generally affordable to moderate - income households. Affordable units for lower- income households are provided pursuant to the City's inclusionary and in -lieu fee program. Chart 4 -2 details the maior residential development projects ongoing in Moorpark. The affordability distribution is based upon finalized development agreements. For pending proiects. Hitch Ranch is assumed to have a 25 -75% split between very Iow and low income units. while Suncal's obligation is assumed to be low- income units. Chart 4 -2: Housing Projects on Residential Zoned Land Source: City of Moorpark, January 2001. 1. In -lieu fees paid rather than construct on -site units. 2. Affordability of single family units based upon lot size 3. Project affordability under negotiation City of Moorpark 4 -3 Housing Element 5 Aff9rd "atsttI%t atrtp�t o e P rn n 11=. ow 111�olx�i�pp�e� ta, RPD Carlsberg -0- -0- -0- 552 552 RPD -15u Cabrillo EDC 4 11 44 -0- 59 RPD -12u Far West ' 7 67 -0- 74 R -1 Asadurian -0- 1 7 -0- 8 RE Peach Hill -0- -0- -0- 10 10 SP -2 Specific Plan 2 ' 25 102 435 562 RPD -1.6u Toll Brothers -0- -0- -0- 216 216 RE -5ac Westpointe 1 Q J5 -0- 225 250 AE Hitch Ranch(3) 25 200 305 605 7958 RE -5ac Suncal(3) 4 N -0- 97 107 a stateowa�` `�otat , :... �. ,... . ,ppe � 4 44 220 ,, _I 4,443 Approved 14 59 1.438 1_731 Pending 4.1.5 200 62� 962 25 85 402 Z12 Total 493 420 1,840 2,443 a9 Source: City of Moorpark, January 2001. 1. In -lieu fees paid rather than construct on -site units. 2. Affordability of single family units based upon lot size 3. Project affordability under negotiation City of Moorpark 4 -3 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Commercial Land. Moorpark, like other Ventura County communities is in the midst of a building boom Fueled by market demand, property owners of commercial land are proposing general plan amendments to rezone the land to permit residential uses Since 1998 a total of 644 units have been built on former commercial land (Chart 4 -3) The vast maiority of the recent proposals for new multi- family development continue to be occurring within the vicinity of Los Angeles Avenue and Old Town Moorpark Conversion of commercial land to residential uses is expected to continue LT Development was recently authorized to file a concurrent General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, add underutilized property to the site and submit plans to include a minimum 30% very low and low- income units. USA properties has also submitted a prescreening application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a 176 -unit tax credit proiect with all units affordable to low - income seniors City staff has identified development opportunities on commercial land in Old Town Moorpark which are suitable for multi - family housing Approximately 39 17 acres are vacant, adjacent to major arterials- have infrastructure in place and are ripe for development. The realistic unit potential and affordability distribution of these units is based upon a -RPD desianatian at 17 dulac and - modest 10% very low and 50 low income requirement. - revue � 05 mu tifami!N' UR 6 ap1pi i r` ed nor iri the oioeliR9 sire. Chart 4 -3 summarizes the City's multi - family development potential. Chart 4 -3: Housing Projects Built/Planned on Commercial Land rvv�es: I. Underutilized site has R.V. storage. 2. 3. Projects approved for submittal of general plan amendment, zone c anae ancj RED City of Moorpark 4-4. Housing Element on p V�Lov�o��Mocl� erg �ToEa Sites Converted to Residential CPD Pacific 32 fees 22 -0- 273 295 CPD Pacific 7 -0- -0- -0- 37 37 CPD Archstone 18 25 37 250 -0- 312 Pending Projects C -2 LT Develop.3 12 50 -0- 114 -0- 164 CPD(') Pending3 6.8 -0- 30 71 -0- 101 C -2 USA Properties3 9.5 88 88 0 -0- 176 Additional Conversion Potential CPD 21&.4 44 49 307 -0- 489 All vacant sites 17 29 14 246 Q 2.$9 r—R9P 4:3 3 8 54 -0- 7-9 25 59 250 310 654 Approved Pending 138 118 185 -0- 441 Sites 53 57- 364 -9 479 .2 -1_4244e Q 2$9 rvv�es: I. Underutilized site has R.V. storage. 2. 3. Projects approved for submittal of general plan amendment, zone c anae ancj RED City of Moorpark 4-4. Housing Element i HOUSING RESOURCES Status of Pending Projects. Moorpark has proiects in various stages of the development review process that will ensure that sufficient sites will be made available to accommodate the City's regional share need Program three in the "Housing Plan" provides the additional means by which the City will provide adequate sites for addressing the RHNA should any project not proceed As of November 2001 the status of these projects is as follows: 0 USA Properties: The City's Community Development and Affordable Housing Committee recommended that the City Council authorize applicant to submit application for concurrent processing of a formal general plan amendment and entitlements (zone change, development agreement, and residential planned development permit) for this project. 0 LT Development: The City's Community Development and Affordable Housing Committee recommended and City Council authorized the applicant to submit application for concurrent processing of a formal general plan amendment and entitlements (zone change. development agreement, and residential planned development permit) for this project. 0 Hitch Ranch. Upon completion of corrections to the EIR. public hearings will be scheduled for review. Concurrent processing of the Specific Plan residential planned development permit, general plan amendment, zone change, and development agreement has been authorized. Hearings are anticipated to begin in October 2002. d SunCal The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended the negative declaration for the project. City Council hearings are slated for the project beginning in January 2002. 0 Westpointe The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended the CRY Council give approval of the general plan amendment. tract map. residential planned development permit. and environmental impact report for the Droiect. Public hearinas are continuina and approval is slated for December 2001. City of Moorpark 4 -5 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Other Production Potential. Moorpark also has three additional development opportunities The Downtown Specific Plan area has several underutilized areas identified pursuant to the 1998 Specific Plan. Ongoing second unit development also occurs in the downtown area The following describes the development potential of each of these opportunities Downtown Specific Plan. In 1998, the City developed a Downtown Specific Plan to recapture the historic role of Old Town Moorpark and capitalize on its central location, adjacency to institutional uses, historic resources and Metrolink The Plan recommends rezoning sites along Charles Street from R -1 to the RPD designation to permit higher density residential development The RPD designation is intended to "encourage lot consolidation and redevelopment of underdeveloped or declining properties."' To encourage development the City offers progressive density bonuses of up to 100% to developers who consolidate land. Areas identified for multi - family housing typically contain a mixture of substandard homes and vacant lots Second Units. Second units are attached or detached dwelling units on the same lot as the primary unit which provide complete independent living facilities. Given the high demand for student and senior housing integrating second units in existing neighborhoods is an opportunity to provide rental housing dispersed throughout the City. From January 1998 through December 2000 six second units were built and occupied. According to real estate ads in the Ventura County Star, smaller second units are affordable to very -low income households (rents ranging up to $800) with the remaining half affordable to low- income households (rents ranging up to $1,200). For the present planning period, the City is proiecting a total of 12 units Replacement Housing. The City has 2 mobile home parks. One park Moorpark Mobile Home Park, has a total of 28 units priced at rents affordable to lower income households. In recent years, the Park has experienced disinvest -ment havinq been cited numerous times by H.C.D. Citations have been issued for a range of health and safety issues, including building electrical mechanical plumbing sewerage and fire hazards. In 2001 the City purchased the park and plans to relocate residents in new housing at the same affordability levels. As a result of bond conditions related to the purchase by a nonprofit organization of the park in May 2000, the park is required to set -aside 20% of the units for very low income tenants Chart 4-4: Additional Development Potential Source: Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan City of Moorpark 4 -6 Housing Element � �` i'ee ocat,or� � � ocdatirlrty Specific Plan Area 7.55 -0- 20 100 Second Unit Potential n.a 6 6 -0- Mobilehome Replacement n.a. 28 0 1 0 Totals 34 26 1 100 Source: Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan City of Moorpark 4 -6 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES 3. Summary of Credits toward the RHNA As summarized below in Chart 4-5. the City has clearly exceeded itsRHNA site requirement for moderate and upper - income units. As summarized in charts earlier in this chapter. the City has well over 800 moderate - income and over 2.000 -upper- income units currently built or in the pipeline This total well exceeds the corresponding targets for moderate and upper income housing. In }ermo of FAaF e} - J- - - 5115MMM15MIK, MWO-lA .J- - - Ilk 1 1 � - - • - � _ The City's low- income requirement is 455 149 units after adjusting for the replacement credits approved by HCD As of 2001 the City's inclusionary program has been successful in approving 483 118 low income units in both single and multi- family development projects. appreva l the Qtv will have met its I t-b*490& The City is in the process of approving three projects (LT Development. USA Properties. and Hitch Ranch) which could add over 200 low income units Taken together, Moorpark will readily meet its low income requirement. The RHNA requires the City to plan for 259 very low income units, after adiustina for the replacement credits approved by HCD As of 2001 Moorpark has used its inclusionary program to approve 2.9-39 very low income units. Additional very low- -chile .inn }her 3 orniec4 }n} lino '1 16 very lew : ..1 +: tawgy ' +.. second units. i1TrfTG'L77TV[T1GT�- r.7TG�TCGT� cvcar�na -rro acr v' i arrnrv- 'tmerr� are PeRdiRgF��. Taken together, the City has a deficit of 402 23 very low income units to be facilitated by Year 2005. The defTierwt - of -veal -lev InfeFqe- UR+ts -w t be addFesrsed .M r sever-a! ways. CiFst the Gity T-I;iFd, the City is adGPtiRq eRdot ere rrinoioTleS for the 'n lieu fee s } Cn r e }in neev [laFGels if it appear that a defioi} ire the RHNA i eyiden} by the ending of 2GQ2 r� uw raw• �+ ��v�c- � - r�v� RHNA rrc- -rs-c. yTG[Ci-rrc D'y�'CiTG GT�OTrfCf�iZ'�'0—To address the-deficit the City will rezone three vacant sites comprising 17 acres of which exceeds the deficit in the very low income requirement__ The City has also committed to expending in -lieu fees in an amount of up to 20 units by 2005 to address any shortfall evident in the very low income requirement by 2005. 1 City of Moorpark, Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, October 1998, p. 51. City of Moorpark 4 -7 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Chart 4 -5: Summary of Efforts to Address the RHNA Notations: 1. Includes approved projects from Chart 4 -2 2. Includes pending multi- family projects from Chart 4 -3. 3. Includes pending projects on Chart 4 -3. 4. Includes projects on Chart 4-4, except Downtown Specific Plan City of Moorpark 4 -7b Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES B. Financial Resources Moorpark has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources for affordable housing activities. They include programs from local, state, federal as well as private resources. This section describes the three most significant housing funding sources currently used in Moorpark — County Community Development Block Grant funds and City Redevelopment Set -Aside funds. Chart 4 -6 summarizes these and other funding available to support Moorpark's housing programs. 1. Redevelopment Set -Aside Funds State law requires Moorpark's Redevelopment Agency to set -aside 20% of all tax increment revenue generated from redevelopment projects for affordable housing. The City's 20% set -aside funds must be used for activities that increase, improve, or preserve the supply of affordable housing within the community. As of FY1997- 1998, the City had an unencumbered balance of $1.2 million. Planned expenditures include: $300,000 in rehabilitation loans, $150,000 in mobile home repairs, $140,000 in first -time homebuyers, and $610,000 in new construction. 2. In -Lieu Fees & the Housing Trust Fund Since 1997, the City of Moorpark has collected in -lieu fees from developers for the purposes of providing affordable housing pursuant to defined development agreements. For example, a developer was required to provide 15 housing units affordable to very low income households paid the City an in lieu fee of approximately $900,000 for the 15 very-low income units ($60,000 per unit). The revenue collected from developers is then placed in the Housing Trust Fund, which is used for the provision and /or maintenance of affordable housing in Moorpark. Over the planning period, the City can expect a total of $4 to $5 million in in lieu fees. 3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds HUD provides funds to local governments for a range of community development activities. The eligible range of activities include, but are not limited to, the following: acquisition and /or disposition of real estate or property, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction (under certain limitations) of housing, home ownership assistance, and also clearance activities. In addition, these funds can be used to acquire or subsidize at -risk units. Since the City is not a HUD entitled jurisdiction, Moorpark receives its CDBG allocation from the County of Ventura rather than HUD. Moorpark receives $195,000 annually in funding for housing and community development activities from the County CDBG program. City of Moorpark 4 -8 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Chart 4 -6: Financial Resources for Housing Activities 1?rograin Name Description g Eli _E 9 ble i4ctwitfes _; . ,.. I. Federal Programs Community Grants awarded to the Ventura County ■ Acquisition Development Block from HUD. The City receives funds on a Rehabilitation Grant (CDBG) formula basis for housing and community development activities. • Home Buyer Assistance ■ Economic Development ■ Homeless Assistance ■ Public Services HOME Grants awarded to the Ventura County ■ Acquisition from HUD. The City can apply for funding Rehabilitation for specific housing projects. ■ Home Buyer Assistance ■ Rental Assistance Section 8 Rental assistance payments to owners of x Rental Assistance Rental Assistance private market rate units on behalf of very low income tenants. Program Section 202 Grants to non- profit developers of ■ Acquisition supportive housing for the elderly. 0 Rehabilitation ■ New Construction Section 811 Grants to non - profit developers of ■ Acquisition supportive housing for persons with E Rehabilitation disabilities, including group homes, independent living facilities and . New Construction intermediate care facilities. . Rental Assistance Section 203(k) When rehabilitation is involved, a lender M Land Acquisition typically requires the improvements to be Rehabilitation finished before a mortgage is made. This program provides along -term, low interest Relocation of Unit loan at fixed rate to finance acquisition and ■ Refinance Existing rehabilitation of the property. Indebtedness Section 108 Loan Provides loan guarantee to CDBG . Acquisition entitlement jurisdictions for pursuing large a Rehabilitation capital improvement projects. Maximum loan amount can be up to five times the Home Buyer Assistance jurisdiction's most recent annual allocation. ■ Economic Development Maximum loan term is 20 years. 0 Homeless Assistance ■ Public Services Mortgage Credit Income tax credits available to first -time d Home Buyer Assistance Certificate Program homebuyers to buy new or existing single - family housing. Local agencies (County) make certificates available. Low Income Tax credits are available to persons and Housing Tax Credit corporations that invest in low- income (LIHTC) rental housing. Proceeds from the sale Construction of Housing are typically used to create housing. City of Moorpark 49 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Chart 4 -6: Financial Resources for Housin4 Activities Program Name Description. = Eligible Aatro�tres' Farm Labor Capital financing for farmworker housing. . Purchase Housing Loan and Loans are for 33 years at 1 % interest. 0 Development Grant Housing grants may cover up to 90% of the development costs of housing. . Improvement . Rehabilitation 2. State Programs Proposition 1A Potential buyers or tenants of affordable X Downpayment Assistance housing projects are eligible to receive a Rental Assistance downpayment assistance or rent subsidies at amounts equivalent to the school fees paid by the housing developer. Multi - Family Deferred payment loans for new - ■ New Construction Housing Program construction, rehabilitation and 8 Rehabilitation (MHP) preservation of rental housing. Preservation California Housing Below market rate financing offered to 0 New Construction Finance Agency builders and developers of multiple- family E Rehabilitation (CHFA) Rental and elderly rental housing. Tax exempt Housing Programs bonds provide below- market mortgages. ' Acquisition of Properties from 20 to 150 units California Housing CHFA sells tax - exempt bonds to make 0 Homebuyer Assistance Finance Agency below market loans to 1s`time homebuyers. Home Mortgage Program operates through participating Purchase Program lenders who originate loans for CHFA. California Housing Low interest loans for the rehabilitation of X Rehabilitation Rehab Program - substandard homes owned and occupied a Repair of Code Violations, Owner Component by lower- income households. City and Accessibility Improvements, (CHRP) non - profits sponsor rehabilitation projects. Room Additions, etc. Supportive Housing/ Funding for housing and services for N Supportive Housing Minors Leaving mentally ill, disabled and persons needing Foster Care support services to live independently. Foster Care California Provides matching grants to assist . Land Acquisition Farmworker development of various types of housing X Site Development Housing Grant (renter - and owner- occupied) projects for m Construction Program agricultural worker households. Rehabilitation 3. Local Programs ■ Redevelopment State law requires that 20 percent of ■ Acquisition Housing Fund Redevelopment Agency funds be set aside . Rehabilitation for a wide range of affordable housing activities governed by State law. ' New Construction Tax Exempt The City can support low- income housing ■ New Construction Housing Revenue by issuing housing mortgage revenue a Rehabilitation Bond bonds requiring the developer to lease a fixed percentage of the units to low income . Acquisition families at specified rental rates. City of Moorpark 410 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES Chart 4 -6: Financial Resources for Housing Activities Program Name "; DescTptron -., r Eligible Actnrrtres In -lieu Fees The City's requires developers to set -aside ■ New Construction a portion of units affordable to lower- Rehabilitation income households or pay an in -lieu fee. These monies are earmarked to support the construction of new affordable housing 4. Private Resources /Financing Programs Federal National Fixed rate mortgages issued by private E Home Buyer Assistance Mortgage mortgage insurers. Association (Fannie Mae) Mortgages which fund the purchase and 0 Home Buyer Assistance rehabilitation of a home. • Rehabilitation Low Down - Payment Mortgages for Single- Home Buyer Assistance Family Homes in under served low - income and minority cities. Savings Pooling process to fund loans for 0 New construction of rentals, Association affordable ownership and rental housing cooperatives, self help Mortgage projects. Non - profit and for profit housing, homeless shelters, Company Inc. developers contact member institutions. and group homes California Non - profit mortgage banking consortium M New Construction Community designed to provide long term debt a Rehabilitation Reinvestment financing for affordable multi - family rental Corporation housing. Non - profit and for profit Acquisition (CCRC) developers contact member banks. Federal Home Direct Subsidies to non - profit and for profit New Construction Loan Bank developers and public agencies for Affordable Housing affordable low income ownership and Program rental projects. Freddie Mac Home Works - Provides 1s` and 2nd Home Buyer Assistance mortgages that include rehabilitation loan. combined with City provides gap financing for Rehabilitation rehabilitation component. Households earning up to 80% MFI qualify. In terms of funds from the State of California to support affordable housing, the Governor in 1999 signed the largest housing budget in the State's history for about $500 million. The most heavily funded programs are as follows: Rental Housing ($177 million), Community Amenities /Development Incentives ($110 million), Ownership Housing ($100 million), Farm Worker Housing ($43 million), Emergency Housing Assistance ($32 million), and Supportive Housing /Minors Leaving Foster Care ($25 million). These sources may provide additional monies to support housing activities in Moorpark. City of Moorpark 4 -11 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES C. Administrative Resources Described below are public and non - profit agencies that can serve as resources in the implementation of housing activities in Moorpark. These agencies play an important role in meeting the housing needs of the City. In particular, they are critical in the production of affordable housing and the preservation of at -risk housing units in Moorpark. Moorpark Community Development Department. The Department of Community Development is responsible for coordinating, processing, reviewing, and inspecting all applications for new development within the City, providing environmental review and public information. The Department coordinates project review, reviews applications, and processes affordable housing entitlement requests. Moorpark Redevelopment Agency: The primary mission of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency is to encourage new development, provide housing, eliminate blight, increase employment opportunities within the community, and generally improve the economic base of the City. The Agency is responsible for low and moderate housing rehabilitation and new construction, economic development within the community, and retaining existing businesses. In addition, the Agency is manages Agency -owned properties and buying and selling land for development. Ventura County Housing Authority. The Housing Authority provides low rent public housing, Section 8 rental subsidies to low income families and seniors, and rehabilitation loans and homeownership assistance to lower income households. The Housing Authority provides Section 8 rental assistance to 91 residents and operates Tafoya Terrace, a 30 -unit affordable senior apartment project in Moorpark. Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC): The Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) is an active developer of single - family homes, cooperative housing, rental projects throughout Ventura County. CEDC was involved in constructing the 62 -unit Villa Campesina project in Moorpark and is involved in the 59 -unit Mountain View project. CEDC also has construction, property management, home ownership, counseling, and community building divisions. Mercy Charities Housing California: Mercy Charities Housing California is a statewide affordable housing developer who places an emphasis on rental developments. Mercy contracts for its construction, has its own management divisions, and emphasizes the provision of various services for its residents. Mercy Charities have developed a number of projects in the Oxnard area. Many Mansions, Inc.: Many Mansions is a non - profit housing and community development organization founded in 1979 to promote and provide safe, well - managed housing to limited income residents in Ventura County. Many Mansions develops, owns, and self - manages special needs and permanent affordable housing. City of Moorpark 4 -12 Housing Element HOUSING RESOURCES D. Opportunities for Energy Conservation Utility- related costs can impact the affordability of housing in Southern California. However, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code sets forth mandatory energy standards for new development, and requires adoption of an "energy budget." In turn, the home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsive for enforcing the energy conservation regulations. The following are among the alternative ways to meet these energy standards. Alternative 1 is the passive solar approach, which requires proper solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south facing windows, and moderate insulation levels. Alternative 2 generally requires higher levels of insulation than Alternative 1, but has no thermal mass or window orientation requirements. Finally, Alternative 3 is also without passive solar design but requires active solar water heating in exchange for less stringent insulation and /or glazing requirements. Additional energy conservation measures are: (1) locating the home on the northern portion of the sunniest portion of the site; (2) designing the structure to admit the maximum amount of sunlight into the building and to reduce exposure to extreme weather; (3) locating indoor areas of maximum usage along the south face of the building and placing corridors, closets, laundry rooms, power core, and garages along the north face; and (4) making the main entrance a small enclosed space that creates an airlock between the building and its exterior; orienting the entrance away from winds; or using a windbreak to reduce the wind velocity against the entrance. Utility companies serving Moorpark offer programs to promote the efficient use of energy and assist lower income customers. The programs are discussed below. Southern California Edison Programs. Edison offers a variety of energy conservation services under the Low Income Energy Efficiency programs (LIEE), which help qualified homeowners and renters conserve energy and control electricity costs. Eligible customers receive services from local community agencies and licensed contractors working with Edison. Services include weatherization, efficient lighting and cooling, refrigerator replacement, and energy education. In addition, Edison participates in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program which provides a 15 percent discount on electric bills for low- income customers. Southern California Gas Programs. Southern California Gas Company offers two direct assistance programs to limited income customers: 1) a no -cost weatherization (such as attic insulation and water blankets), and 2) a no -cost furnace repair and replacement service. The Gas Company also participates in the State CARE program, providing low- income customers with a discount on the gas bills. City of Moorpark 4 -13 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 5. HOUSING PLAN Sections 2 to 4 establish the housing needs, constraints, and resources in Moorpark. This section, the Housing Plan, evaluates the City's accomplishments from the 1989 Housing Element and sets forth the City's goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address the identified housing needs in Moorpark from 2000 to 2005. A. Evaluation of Past Accomplishments As part of the Housing Element, cities must periodically review the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementing the programs in the housing element. These results should be quantified wherever possible and qualitative where necessary. This section evaluates the accomplishments since the last Housing Element was completed as the basis for developing appropriate policy and program responses. 1. Housing Maintenance and Improvement The 1989 Housing Element set forth programs to address the maintenance, improvement, and conservation of housing. Specifically, the Element proposed continued implementation of the code enforcement, housing rehabilitation loan, capital improvement programs, and redevelopment implementation plan. These programs were designed to maintain the quality of housing and neighborhoods, identify problem structures, and provide rehabilitation assistance where feasible. Over the planning period, the City has implemented a code enforcement program to maintain the quality of existing structures while identifying more problematic buildings for rehabilitation or demolition. On a wider scale, the City implements a larger Redevelopment Plan to identify under - served areas of the community which experience dilapidated housing, deteriorating infrastructure, and other issues contributing to blight. These are ongoing programs with no specific objectives. In 1994, the City began its rehabilitation program for lower income owner- occupied properties in the Redevelopment Project Area. As shown later, the City's owner - occupied rehabilitation programs were largely successful in exceeding its goal. The renter - occupied housing rehabilitation program fell far short of its goal, however, the City's apartment stock is in relatively excellent condition. The vast majority of poorer quality housing is in older single- family neighborhoods in downtown. The City's prior menu of programs will continue to be implemented throughout the remainder of the housing element planning period. In 1998, the City Council adopted a Downtown Specific Plan and incentives for the consolidation of lots, where desirable, to facilitate transition of suitable underutilized sites for multi - family housing while stabilizing established single - family neighborhoods. Information on this program is included in the Program section of this Element. City of Moorpark 5 -1 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 2. Housing Production The RHNA assigned Moorpark a construction need of 2,741 homes from 1989 to 1994. Of that total, 35% of the units were targeted to lower income households and 65% to moderate and upper income households. The City relied primarily on market production to address the moderate -upper income requirement. However, to encourage the production of affordable housing, the City adopted a density bonus and second unit program as well as adopted a Redevelopment Plan. Progress in meeting the specified production objectives has been mixed. With respect to production, the housing stock increased by 1,181 new homes. Affordability of the new units can be inferred by the type of unit constructed and the affordability matrix presented in Chart 2 -21. From 1989 through 1997, 833 units were single - family homes, affordable to upper income households. Another 222 units of mobile homes and condominiums /townhomes and 126 apartments were built. Given current prices, the majority were affordable to moderate - income households. Several factors were responsible for the shortfall in housing production. First, the RHNA targets were based upon a projection of historical growth rates that were artificially inflated by continuing federal tax credits, a continuing strong and rapidly inflating housing market, and over - optimistic employment projections. Following the 1989 RHNA, however, the Southland was affected by a prolonged and severe economic recession, which subsequently depressed the underlying consumer demand for new housing. Beginning in 1997, the housing market in Ventura County began to rebound. In an effort to leverage new housing demand, the City began to use development agreements to ensure that a portion of new construction be set -aside for affordable housing. The City established a 10 %/15% inclusionary goal citywide and in the redevelopment area. For development in the hillside areas of Moorpark where inclusionary units are financially infeasible, the City began collecting in -lieu fees to deposit in a Housing Trust Fund. Strong expansion of the housing market is expected to add to the effectiveness of existing City efforts. Programs and policies contained in the Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Zoning Code (e.g. density bonus, second units), which were less effective during the slower housing market, are expected to lead to more affordable development in Moorpark. As shown in Chapter 4, the City has already received $3.8 million in in -lieu fees described in Chapter 4. The present menu of programs coupled with a strong economy suggest that housing production, including affordable housing, will be significant through 2005. However, this Housing Element will propose the following prioritization of in -lieu fee use to ensure that the RHNA can be achieved: 1" priority — production of affordable housing; 2nd priority -- subsidy of affordable housing; 3`d priority -- housing rehabilitation; and 4t" priority -- housing assistance. Details on this program are shown later in this chapter. City of Moorpark 5 -2 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 3. Housing Assistance As part of the Housing Production goals specified earlier, Moorpark also set forth to achieve other non - production housing assistance goals to ensure that lower- income households have greater access to rental and homeownership opportunities. This overall goal was to be achieved through the following four major programs: (1) regulatory and financial assistance; (2) renter and homeowner assistance; (3) mobile home rent stabilization; and (4) assistance for special needs households. With respect to providing regulatory and financial assistance, the City is actively involved in assisting nonprofit organizations build affordable housing. During the 1983 RHNA cycle a 30 -unit public housing project, Tafoya Terrace, was built. During the 1989 -1994 RHNA, the 62 -unit Villa Campesina project was built. In the present 2000 -2005 RHNA, the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation is building another affordable housing project in Moorpark with city financial assistance. Direct assistance was also provided to low and moderate income households. Over the planning period, the City negotiated with HUD to increase the allocation of Section 8 certificates /vouchers by a magnitude of fourfold. In an effort. to assist low and moderate income households transition to homeowners, the City joined the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program in 1997 and became a member in the Fresh Rate Program in 1999. Already, five households have been assisted in these new homeownership programs. In order to preserve an important source of lower cost housing, Moorpark continued implementation of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program. Even with the sale of the largest mobile home park in May 2000, the owning non- profit organization agreed to continue both the rent control program and the Hardship Waiver Program to waive rent increases for households. In addition, the agreement stipulated that at least 20 % of all the spaces must be reserved for low income households and of those half must have rents affordable to very low income households. Moorpark also provides assistance to its special needs populations. The Section 8 Rental Assistance program has provided over 90 vouchers and certificates to very low income seniors and families, well above the initial goal of 19. The City has supported the development of residential care facilities for seniors and the disabled and recently approved a facility for Alzheimer's patients in 1999. To address the needs of very low income residents and those at risk of becoming homeless, the City has funded Catholic Charities to provide shelter referral, social services, food and clothing, information, eviction services and legal assistance. To effectively address the needs of the homeless, the City continues to participate as a member of the Ventura Council of Government's Standing Committee on Homelessness. City of Moorpark 5 -3 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 4. Removal of Governmental Constraints The City proposed active involvement, to the extent feasible, in mitigating governmental constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing. The 1989 Housing Element proposed that the City would revise densities as needed to address the RHNA as well as study the feasibility and potential of encouraging higher density developments in the downtown where appropriate. Moreover, the City would continue to review development procedures, development standards, and design criteria. In 1998, the City Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan as part of a long -term strategy to revitalize the downtown core of the community. The Plan is designed to encourage a mix of commercial uses and appropriate higher density residential uses to support the commercial areas. To spur redevelopment, the Plan allows for lot consolidation coupled with a range of higher densities at certain sites, which may foster the development of multi - family housing. In addition, the Plan encourages infill housing development, which has resulted in 31 infill units having been developed. In order to ensure that site development standards do not constrain the production of housing in Moorpark, the City conducted a review of site development standards and design and development criteria. The City is also currently preparing a development fee study and cost management review to compare housing fees and costs with those of surrounding cities. This study will ensure that fees and exactions recover the costs of services provided, and remain competitive with surrounding communities. 5. Fair Housing Lastly, the City implemented programs designed to reduce governmental constraints to the production, maintenance and improvement of housing for all economic segments of the community as well as ensure fair and equal housing opportunities for residents. Through its involvement and support, the City has helped ensure that all residents, regardless of their status, enjoy the fair and equal opportunity to secure housing that is best suited to their lifestyle needs and income levels, without fear of discrimination. The City continued its active support of fair housing and related services for Moorpark residents. In June 2000, the City participated in the Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and the City Council adopted the findings. With respect to its larger fair housing program, Moorpark participated in the Ventura County Fair Housing Council (VCFHC) operated by the Fair Housing Institute. Support was also provided to Catholic Charities to handle eviction prevention services, tenant assistance, counseling, referrals, homeless services, as well as basic food and clothing. City of Moorpark 5 -4 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN Chart 5 -1: ,Past Accomplishments P�o'gram Type " fi Ac#wity.. 9 kfousling Element -; Objective ;`Progress Rehabilitate owner- occupied housing 17 27 Residential Rehabilitation . Provide home repair rebates for owners /renters 15 Rehabilitate rental housing 6 — Housing Evaluation Evaluate housing in need of rehabilitation 8 27 Capital Address areas requiring capital improvements to Improvements encourage residential development Ongoing Ongoing Code Enforcement Improve quality of neighborhoods Ongoing Ongoing Replacement Plan Develop replacement plan for Rehab program Ongoing - -- Affordable Housing Develop affordable housing 113 units 348 units Density Bonus Offer density bonuses 846 units None Affordable Housing Promote development of affordable housing and Committee affordable housing programs Ongoing Ongoing Manufactured & Explore manufactured housing and self -build Determined Self -Build Projects projects to cut production costs 113 units infeasible. Rental Assistance Section 8 vouchers /certificates 19 91 Redevelopment Plan Adopt Redevelopment Plan Adopt Adopted Mixed Use Study feasibility of mixed use development in ngong Oi Downtown Development the downtown area SP adopted Infill Development p Promote infll housing through identification of 400 units 32 units vacant or underutilized parcels Fast Track Permit Investigate fast track permit processing for low Processing and moderate income housing projects Implement Implemented Development Eliminate unnecessary conditions of approval Review Standards Review that add to development costs Ongoi ng completed General Plan and Review Land Use Element & Zoning for incon- Zoning Review sistencies & encourage high density Ongoing Ongoing development Housing /Employment Analyze employment trends and promote jobs - Ongoing Ongoing Analysis housing balance Participated Equal Housing Promote equal housing opportunity Ongoing in 2000 -2005 Opportunity County Al Review housing counseling programs Ongoing Ongoing Homeless Shelter Support Ventura County Homeless Revolving Support homeless Program Loan Fund and work with County to identify Ongoing shelter sites prevention services City of Moorpark 5 -5 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN B. Goals and Policies This section of the Housing Element contains a brief overview of the key issues from the Needs Assessment as well as the goals and policies that Moorpark intends to implement to address these housing needs. In addressing the City's housing needs, the City's overall community goals are as follows: ➢ Adequate provision of decent, safe and affordable housing for residents without regard to race, age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, or other arbitrary considerations. ➢ Adequate provision of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and location with particular attention to the provision of housing for special needs groups. ➢ Encourage growth through the identification of suitable parcels for residential development, changes in land use patterns, and appropriate recycling of land. ➢ Develop a balanced community accessible to employment, transportation, shopping, medical services, and governmental agencies among others. Within the aforementioned general framework, the City has developed the following goals and policies to encourage the preservation, production, maintenance, and improvement of housing within the Moorpark community. 1. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation Housing and neighborhood conservation are important to maintaining and improving quality of life. While the majority of housing in Moorpark is relatively new, some of the older residential neighborhoods in the downtown shows signs of deterioration. Efforts to improve and revitalize housing must not only address existing conditions, but also focus on preventive repairs to maintain the quality of the housing stock. The policies listed below address the issue of housing and neighborhood conservation. GOAL 1.0: Assure the quality, safety, and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality of residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.1 Continue to monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards in residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.2 Continue to provide City services designed to maintain the quality of the housing stock and the neighborhoods. Policy 1.3 Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long -term housing quality. Policy 1.4 Continue to promote the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of residential structures which have fallen into disrepair. Policy 1.5 Support the preservation and maintenance of historically and architecturally significant buildings and neighborhoods. City of Moorpark 5 -6 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 2. Adequate Residential Sites The Regional Housing Needs Assessment addresses the need for decent, adequate, and affordable housing to accommodate existing and future housing needs induced from regional growth. In order to further these goals, Moorpark is committed to assisting in the development of adequate housing that is affordable to all economic segments of the population through the following goals and policies: GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan designations to provide a range of housing opportunities. Policy 2.1 Identify adequate sites which will be made available and zoned at the appropriate densities, to facilitate goals set forth in the 1998 -2005 RHNA. Policy 2.2 Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services, facilities, circulation, and other needed infrastructure to support development. Policy 2.3 Investigate rezoning or redesignation of commercial lots that are no longer economically viable uses to appropriate residential uses. Policy 2.4 Promote and encourage mixed -use residential and commercial uses where appropriate as a means to facilitate development. 3. Housing Assistance and Special Needs Moorpark is home to a number of groups with special housing needs, including seniors, large families, farm workers, disabled persons, and single parent families, among others. These groups may face greater difficulty in finding decent and affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one's income, family characteristics, disability, or health issues. GOAL 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs groups. Policy 3.1 Use public financial resources, to the extent feasible, to support the provision and production of housing for lower - income households and persons and families with special needs. Policy 3.2 Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities. Policy 3.3 Support the conservation of mobile home parks, historic neighborhoods, publicly- subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable housing. Policy 3.4 Require, in aggregate, 10% of new units to be affordable to lower- income households. Establish priority for usage of in -lieu fee as follows: 1St priority — production of affordable housing; 2nd -- subsidy of affordable housing; 3`d — housing rehabilitation; and 4th priority -- housing assistance. City of Moorpark 5 -7 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN 4. Removal of Government Constraints Market factors and government regulations can significantly impact the production and affordability of housing. Although market conditions are often beyond the direct influence of any jurisdiction, efforts can be directed at ensuring the reasonableness of land use controls, development standards, permit - processing, fees and exactions, and governmental requirements to encourage housing production. GOAL 4: Where appropriate, mitigate unnecessary governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Policy 4.1 Periodically review City regulations, ordinances, fees /exactions to ensure they do not unduly constrain the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing. Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing, such as relief from development standards, density bonuses, or fee waivers where deemed to be appropriate. Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined, timely, and coordinated processing of residential projects to minimize holding costs and encourage housing production. Policy 4.4 Support infill development at suitable locations and provide, where appropriate, incentives to facilitate their development. - 5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity Ensuring fair and equal housing opportunity is an important goal. Whether through mediating disputes, investigating bona fide complaints of discrimination, or through the provision of education services, the provision of fair housing services is an important tool to ensure fair and equal access to housing. The following - policies are designed to continue implementation of applicable fair housing laws. GOAL 5: Ensure fair and equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, family type, ancestry, national origin, color or other protected status. Policy 5.1 Provide fair housing services to residents and assure that residents are aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to fair housing. Policy 5.2 Discourage discrimination in either the sale or rental of housing on the basis of state or federal protected classes. Policy 5.3 Implement appropriate action items identified in the Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to ensure fair and equal access to housing. City of Moorpark 5 -8 Housing Element C. Housing Programs HOUSING PLAN The goals and policies contained in the Housing Element address Moorpark's housing needs and are implemented through housing programs offered by the City's Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency. In drafting these programs, the Government Code requires the housing element to address five major areas: ➢ Housing and Neighborhood Conservation ➢ Assisting in the Provision /Development of Housing ➢ Providing Adequate Sites to Achieve Diversity ➢ Removing Governmental Constraints ➢ Promoting Equal Housing Opportunity This section describes the programs that Moorpark will implement to address housing needs within the community. Chart 5 -2 provides a summary of each program, five -year objective, the funding sources, and the agency responsible to implement the program. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation 1. Housing Rehabilitation The Housing Rehabilitation Program provides rehabilitation loans to low- income owner households. Loans up to $20,000 are provided for owner - occupied housing and $6,500 for mobilehome units. Very low- income households pay no interest and repayment of the loan is due at the time of sale for single- family units versus 10 years for mobilehomes. For low- income households, they pay only a 3% annual interest rate amortized over 10 years for single family units and 7 years for mobile homes. Mobilehomes can receive a 50% increase if they received a waiver in rent increase (Program 10a). 2. Code Enforcement The City maintains two full -time code enforcement officers to ensure compliance with building and property maintenance codes. The Code Enforcement Division receives approximately 90 citizen complaints per month. The Code Enforcement Division plays a key role in improving Moorpark neighborhoods. The Division handles a variety of issues ranging from property maintenance (e.g. illegally park vehicles, overgrown vegetation) to housing conditions. For housing code violations, the property owners are referred to the City's housing program staff. Five Year Objective: Provide loans for a maximum of 50 single- family units and 25 mobile home units. Five -Year Objective: Continue code enforcement activities. City of Moorpark 5 -9 Housing Element Adequate .Residential Sites 3. Program to Rezone Sites Vacant and underutilized commercially -zoned sites offer opportunity to accommodate residential development and the RHNA. In the past several years, developers have initiated the conversion of commercial sites for residential use. The City's rezoning has resulted in the Archstone project and the Pacific Communities project noted in Chapter 4. Other projects are under consideration. Taken together, nearly 60% of the City's RHNA has been addressed through conversion of commercial sites. Given the rate of transition of commercial sites adequate sites will be available to facilitate and encourage housing production that is commensurate with the City's 1998 -2005 RHNA. Housing affordability of the units to be built will be governed by the development agreement and inclusionary requirements. However, if adequate sites do not become available by ending 2002, the City shall take proactive steps to rezone land and /or increase the density of existing sites to address the shortfall. 4. Downtown Specific Program The Downtown Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1998, . is designed to encourage a pedestrian - oriented mix of businesses, offices, and residential uses in the Downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan area is characterized by smaller lots, underutilized lots, older single - family homes, and a historic district. Because the majority of lots are irregularly shaped, the Zoning Code restricts density for lots of 7,000 square feet to 7 units per acre. According to the Specific Plan, the Downtown offers significant opportunities for public or private involvement in facilitating mixed use, infill and affordable housing. The Zoning Code offers incentives to facilitate the Downtown Specific Plan. If parcels are combined or merged, the maximum density can be increased to 18 units /acre. However, given the rapid pace of development in the City, there is a need for a more formal inventory of suitable sites for potential residential development. HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Monitor compliance with the RHNA, and if a shortfall appears evident by end of 2002, (1) upzone selected sites at a minimum density of 15 du /ac and /or (2) rezone commercial land for residential use at a minimum density of 15 du /ac The amount of land and the density thereof will be determined based "on the shortfall evident end of 2002. The City will complete all rezoning or upzoning on necessary sites by mid 2003 and will report progress annually as mart of the overall general plan annual report. Five -Year Objective: Further the Downtown Specific Plan purposes by conducting a formal land inventory by end of 2002. City of Moorpark 5 -10 Housing Element f 5. Farm Worker Housing Though most agricultural areas are located outside Moorpark, some farmworkers live in the community. Year -round farm labor is typically housed in existing housing, government- assisted units, and mobile homes. Farm labor housing is permitted in five zone districts. Examples include the Villa Campesina development, a sweat - equity project constructed for farmworkers and low income households in 1990. The City will continue to assist in the development of housing to address the needs of local farmworkers. 6. Land Use Element/Zoning The Moorpark Land Use Element and Zoning Code provide for various residential uses, ranging from a density of 1/4 to 1 du /acre in rural and agricultural areas, and from to 2 du /acre in medium density areas, to 15 du /acre in medium -high density areas. The Zoning Code also permits housing densities above those specified in the underlying zone with the use of the density bonus provisions. In addition, Specific Plans are also used to provide flexibility from residential development standards. These sites, in conjunction with the appropriate affordability tool (e.g., inclusionary or density bonus program) provide the means to facilitate and encourage a range in types and prices of housing to address the RHNA. 7. Second Units A_ secondary unit is a separate dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons Second units are currently allowed on lots of -10,000 square feet or greater pursuant to an approved administrative permit. The unit must meet the minimum development standards for the primary residence unit. Given the limited developable land remaining in Moorpark, continuing to integrate second units in appropriate locations presents an opportunity for the City to accommodate needed rental housing for lower- income persons, students, and seniors. HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Continue to make provision for availability of farm worker housing in the community. Five -Year Objective: Provide appropriate land use designations and sites to facilitate the achievement of the City's 1998 -2005 RHNA as follows: 269 very low income units, 155 low income units, 383 moderate income units, and 448 upper income units. Five -Year Objective: The City will continue to permit second units in all residential zones pursuant to an administrative permit. The City anticipates that 12 second units will be built during the planning period. City of Moorpark 5 -11 Housing Element Housing Assistance and Special Needs 8. Section 8 Rental Assistance The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very low income households who spends more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Prospective renters secure housing from HUD - registered apartments that accept the certificates. HUD pays to the landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford to pay and the payment standard. Under the Section 8 voucher program, a family can choose more costly housing, if they pay the rent difference. The Ventura County Housing Authority administers the Section 8 program on behalf of the City. 9. Homeownership Programs The City of Moorpark utilizes a combination of City - sponsored home - ownership programs coupled with various other programs offered by other governmental agencies to expand opportunities. a. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program The City participates in the federal Mortgage Credit Certificate Program operated by Ventura County. The MCC program allows qualified first -time homebuyers to take an annual credit against their federal income taxes of up to 20% of the annual interest paid on the applicant's mortgage. The tax credit allowance allow homebuyers more income available to qualify for a mortgage loan and make monthly payments. Therefore, the MCC Program is a way to further leverage homeownership assistance. b. Fresh Rate Program. Moorpark participates in the Ventura Cities Mortgage Finance Authority (VCMFA) Fresh Rate Program. The VCMFA provides a 4 percent down payment and closing cost assistance. The program is financed by the VCMFA and is limited to Moorpark residents with incomes up to 120 percent of the County or State median income, whichever is greater. This program assists Moorpark in providing sufficient housing opportunities for its moderate - income residents. HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Continue to participate in the Section 8 program, advertise program availability, and encourage rental property owners to register their units with the Housing Authority. Five Year Objective: Continue participation and advertise program availability. Five Year Objective: Continue participation and advertise program availability. City of Moorpark 5 -12 Housing Element rn- 10. Preservation Programs a. Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization The Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program limits rent increases for mobilehome spaces to one adjustment per year based on changes in the level of inflation. The City will also use funds to extend the life of its Hardship Waiver Program for lower income residents at mobilehome parks. The Hardship Waiver exempts lower income households from any annual rent increase on a mobilehome space if that increase results in an economic hardship for that household. b. Preservation of Units Moorpark is also home to various projects which have federal, state, and /or local controls on affordability levels. One rental complex with 74 assisted units is funded through mortgage revenue bonds that are not set to expire until in 2029. Although these projects will not expire over the 2000- 2010 monitoring period, the City will continue to monitor the status of this project. Another mobile home park also affordability controls pursuant to the conditions of the authorizing bond measure. As project expiration comes due, the City will work with the owners to consider options to preserve the units before the affordability controls expire. c. Mobile home Replacement The Citv has two mobile home parks that provide for affordable housing. One park Moorpark Mobile home Park, has a total of 28 units priced at rents affordable to lower income households. In recent years, the Park has experienced significant dis- investment, having been cited numerous times by HCD for substandard conditions, building and safety code violations. Citations have been issued for building, electrical mechanical plumbing sewerage and fire hazards. In 2001 the City purchased the park and plans to relocate the residents and rebuild units necessary to comply with its legal obligations The second park, Villa Del Arroyo has 240 units of which 20% (48 units) are required to be available for very low income families as a result of bond conditions levied at the time of resale in May 2000 HOUSING PLAN Five Year Objective: Continue Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program and extend life of Hardship Waiver Program. Five Year Objective: Continue to monitor the status of the assisted units in affordable projects. Five Year Objective: Provide for the replacement of units and relocation of tenants as required by law. City of Moorpark 5 -13 Housing Element 11. Inclusionary Program Through the use of development agreements, the City's inclusionary policies require that 10% of all units in each development project and 15% of all units in development projects within the redevelopment area must be affordable to low and very low income households. In appropriate situations, developers unable to provide units are assessed in -lieu fees based upon the estimated cost of providing affordable units. This occurs most often with single - family developments in the hillsides. Currently, the City can allocate inclusionary fees for housing rehabilitation, construction, or .assistance. To ensure that the City addresses its RHNA affordability requirements for low rent housing it may become necessary to earmark funding to assist in the development of low -rent housing. Therefore the City will develop a policy for expending the estimated $4 to $5 million in in -lieu fees that may be generated over the planning period. Priority will be given to proiects that address any shortfall in the RHNA particularly for very low- income households. 12. Zoning Code Revision The City currently provides for its special needs populations by allowing the siting of housing for farm worker housing, senior housings, and the disabled population in appropriate residentially -zoned areas. However, emergency shelters and transitional housing are currently not permitted in any zones. Recent amendments to state housing law require that adequate sites must be made available to allow for emergency shelters and transitional housing. To comply with State law and fair housing goals the City will therefore revise the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing pursuant to securing an approved conditional use permit. The conditions of the conditional use permit shall not unduly constrain the siting of such use HOUSING PLAN Five Year Objective: Adopt fee expenditure priorities as follows: 1" priority — affordable housing production; 2 "d -- subsidy of affordable housing; 3`d -- housing rehabilitation; and 4th -- housing assistance. Adopt expenditure priorities by end of 2002. Use inclusionary funds to assist in the development of up to 20 very low- income units by end of 2004. Five -Year Objective: Review and revise Zoning Code to allow the siting of emergency shelters and transitional housing pursuant to an approved conditional use permit by end of 2002. City of Moorpark 5 -14 Housing Element Removal of Government Constraints 13. Land Assemblage /Disposition /Acquisition The City and its Redevelopment Agency will continue to encourage the provision of quality, affordable housing through use of land write - downs, direct financial assistance, and /or regulatory incentives. The City will use Redevelopment Set - Aside, Housing Trust funds, County CDBG, and other funds to assist in acquiring and assembling property and writing down land costs for the development of new housing. Currently, the City is acquiring various pieces of Property in downtown Moorpark for redevelopment purposes and affordable housing opportunities. 14. Regulatory and Financial Assistance Regulatory assistance can be used to assist in the development of projects that address local housing needs. In the past housing element cycle, the City reduced development fees for the Villa Campesina proiect to facilitate and encourage the construction of affordable farmworker housing. In the present housing element cycle, the City reduced development standards and increased the density for the Archstone Communities proiect to facilitate and encourage affordable housing for very low and lower - income residents. The City will continue to provide regulatory and assistance for the development of affordable projects that address identified housing needs, such as special needs groups and the RHNA. 15. Assistance to CHDOs The City will continue to work with local Community Housing Development Organizations to provide affordable housing to meet the needs lower income households. In the past, the City assisted the Villa Campesina project, a 62 -unit single - family sweat equity development for farmworkers and other lower income households, by reducing development fees. Recently, the City sold property acquired through bond financing to Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation for the Mountain View project, which will provide 15 single - family homes for lower income families and an additional 44 units for moderate - income families. HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Assist in the purchase and assembly of land for housing. Five -Year Objective: Continue to provide regulatory assistance for projects that address local housing needs. Five Year Objective: Continue to work with local CHDOs by providing assistance for the development of affordable housing in Moorpark. City of Moorpark 5 -15 Housing Element 16. Density Bonus Program The City provides density bonuses for developments addressing housing needs within the community. The General Plan allows a density bonus from 15 units to 20 units per acre for senior citizen and /or developments with 20% of the units affordable to lower income households. Three tiers of density bonuses are designed to _ address site specific constraints. For instance, the City provides lot consolidation incentives in the Downtown Specific Plan area, density transfer provisions for development in the hillsides, standard density bonus Provisions elsewhere in Moorpark, and the ability to increase density up to 30 du /acre through a RPD. 17. R -P -D Zone Designation The R -P -D Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet specific housing needs. The R -P -D Zone designation offers various densities that can be tailored to the lot, nature of the development, and local housing needs. The R -P -D Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher density housing (up to 15 du /ac) and can be coupled with a density bonus, financial and regulatory incentives to provide affordable housing. Recently, the Archstone proiect used the RPD designation to secure modified development standards and increased density, along with its inclusionary requirements, to facilitate the set aside of 20% of the units for lower- income households 18. Design Review Historically, design review has been imalemented through the RPD process which requires appropriate review of projects covering five or more lots_ The design standards for larger projects are typically governed by the applicable Specific Plan However, as remaining larger tracts of land are built out design review will focus more at neighborhoods To assist City staff and decision- makers in reviewing infill projects. the City will draft design guidelines and standards to ensure that proiect designs are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The City will ensure that such design standards and guidelines do not present undue cost impacts upon developers HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Encourage housing development through State density bonus law and incentives. Five -Year Objective: Continue to use the R -P -D Zone designation to address local housing needs. Five -Year Objective: In areas not covered b Specific Plans. the City will develop citywide design standards and auidelines by ending 2003. City of Moorpark 5 -16 Housing Element Fair Housing Services 19. Fair Housing Services Moorpark, in conjunction with Ventura County, will continue to ensure the provision of fair housing services for its residents. These services will include counseling and information on housing discrimination, landlord- tenant dispute resolution, bilingual housing literature, and testing for housing discrimination. In addition, the City adopted the Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in July 2000. The City will work with local fair housing agencies and the County to implement recommendations in the Al. HOUSING PLAN Five -Year Objective: Continue to support provision of fair housing services. City of Moorpark 5 -17 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN Chart 5 -2: Housing Program Implementation Summary Housing and Neighborhood Conservation 1. Housing Provide loans for a RDA Set - Rehabilitation maximum of 50 single- Aside and RDA 2000 - Program Preserve and family units & 25 Housing 2005 improve neighborhoods mobile homes. Trust Fund upzone selected sites Community at a minimum density of 2. Code and housing Continue code Department Development 2000- Enforcement enforcement activities Budget Department 2005 Residential Sites If a shortfall aapears evident by end of 2002 in the RHNA, (1) upzone selected sites at a minimum density of 15 du /ac and /or (2) rezone commercial land for residential use at a minimum density of 15 du /ac The amount of land and the density thereof will be 3. Rezone Sites Department Budget CDD Mid 2003 determined based on the shortfall evident end of 2002. Complete all rezoning or upzoning on necessary sites by mid 2003 and report progress annually as part of the general plan Provide sufficient sites to address the full range of housing needs identified in the RHNA. annual report. 4. Downtown Specific Program Further the Downtown Specific Plan purposes by conducting a formal land inventory Department Budget RDA & CDD End of 2002 Continue to make 5. Farmworker Housing provision for availability of farm worker housing Department Budget RDA &CDD 2000 - 2005 6. Land Use Element /Zoning in the community. Provide appropriate land use designations and sites to facilitate the achievement of the Department City's RHNA as follows: Budget CDD 269 very low income, 155 low income, 383 moderate income, and 448 upper income units. of Moorpalrk 1 5 -18 1 1 Housing 2000- 2005 HOUSING PLAN Maus�ng Program Program Acton Fexnding:. `Source ResponsiibEer 'f�rrte= Objective °., . ._. _ . .:: _. ` ; Agency, Frame Continue to permit 7. Second second units in all Department 2000 - Units residential zones Budget CDD 2005 pursuant to an administrative permit. Provision of Housing and Housing Assistance Continue to participate in the Section 8 8. Section 8 program, advertise Section 8 Ventura Rental Facilitate rental program availability, Vouchers County 2000 - Assistance opportunities and encourage rental Certificates Housing 2005 property owners to Authority register their units with the Housing Authority. 9a. Mortgage Credit Facilitate Continue to participate p p Ventura RDA 2000 - Certificate home- ownership opportunities in program and advertise County 2005 9b. Fresh Rate VCMFA VCFMA 2000 - Program Bond funds 2005 10a. Mobile- Continue Mobilehome home Rent Park Rent Stabilization Department 2000 - Stabilization Preserve Program and extend Budget RDA 2005 Program affordability of life of Hardship Waiver publicly- assisted Program. 10b. Continue to monitor the RDA Set - Preservation of housing status of the assisted Aside, RDA 2000 - At -Risk Units units in affordable Housing 2005 projects. Trust Funds 10c Provide for replace- RDA. Mobilehome ment of units and Housing RDA 2000- Replacement relocation of tenants as Trust Funds 2005 required by law. Adopt fee expenditure priorities as follows: 1St priority — affordable housing production; 2 "d 11. Subsidizes the — subsidy of affordable housing; 3`d -- housing Department Inclusionary provision of rehabilitation; and 4`h _ Budget, RDA & CDD End of Program affordable housing assistance. Housing 2002 housing Use inclusionary funds Trust Funds to. assist in the development of up to 20 very low- income units by en�f 2004. Review and revise Permits Zoning Code to allow 12. Zoning emergency the siting of emergency Department End of Code Revision shelters and shelters and Budget CDD 2002 transitional transitional housing housing pursuant to an approved CUP. City of Moorpark 5 -19 Housing Element HOUSING PLAN Flous�ng M Program M Program Acton Funding Responsible Time- ro rain P . g Ob`ective ; ..__,.... ..... u...Source Frame , , Removal of Government Constraints 13. Land Assembles RDA Set- Assemblage g property to Assist in the purchase Aside, 2000 - /Disposition encourage and assembly of land Funds and RDA 2005 /Acquisition affordable for housing CDBG housing Provides Continue to provide 14. Regulatory regulatory regulatory assistance RDA Set - and Financial assistance for for projects that Aside or CDD 2000 - Assistance Projects that address local housing Housing 2005 address local needs. Trust Funds housing needs Continue to work with Addresses local local CHDOs by RDA Set - 15. Assistance housing needs providing ' assistance Aside, 2000 - to CHDOs by working with for the development of Housing RDA &CDD 2005 CHDOs affordable housing in Trust Funds Moorpark. Encourages Encourage housing 16. Density development of development through Department CDD 2000 - Bonus affordable State density bonus Budget 2005 housing law and incentives. 17. R -P -D Provide Continue to use the R- Zone flexibility in P -D Zone designation Department CDD 2000 - Designation meeting local to address local Budget 2005 housing needs housing needs. 18. Design In areas not covered by Specific Plans. the Reivew Streamline RPD City will develop and design Department CDD o review process — �d�- . -esian standards and Budget 2QO-3 Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity 19. Fair Provides fair Department Housing g ousing service Continue to provide Budget, CDD 2000 -2005 Services and implements fair housing services CDBG the City's Al. funds Summary of Goals Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Very Low Income 269 5 104 Low Income 155 70 0 Moderate Income 383 0 0 Upper Income 448 0 0 City of Moorpark 5 -20 Housing Element Appendix Housing Element Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX A - HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY Acre: a unit of land measure equal to 43,650 square feet. Acreage, Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights -of -way. Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit. Affordable Housing: Under State and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and other related costs. Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city. Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs. At -Risk Housing: Multi- family rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for low and moderate income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements. California Department of Housing and Community Development - HCD: The State Department responsible for administering State - sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with State housing law. Census : The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development activities, including public facilities and economic development. Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis. Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed "per acre," e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre. Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location. City of Moorpark A -1 Housing Element GLOSSARY OF TERMS Development Impact Fees: A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for a jurisdiction's costs of providing services to new development. Development Right: The right granted to a land owner or other authorized party to improve a property. Such right is usually expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing zoning regulation. For example, a development right may specify the maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre of land. Dwelling, Multi- family: A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual households; an apartment or condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single- family Attached: A one - family dwelling attached to one or more other one - family dwellings by a common vertical wall. Row houses and town homes are examples of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single - family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any other dwelling, which is designed for and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yards. Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of a household. Elderly Household: As defined by HUD, elderly households are one- or two- member (family or non - family) households in which the head or spouse is age 62 or older. Element: A division or chapter of the General Plan. Emergency Shelter: An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and /or homeless individuals on a limited short-term basis. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided on a formula basis to large entitlement jurisdictions. Entitlement City: A city, which based on its population, is entitled to receive funding directly from HUD. Examples of entitlement programs include CDBG, HOME and ESG. Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and other HUD programs and are published annually by HUD. First -Time Home Buyer: Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during the three -year period preceding the HUD - assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local definitions for first -time home buyer programs which differ from non - federally funded programs. City of Moorpark A -2 Housing Element GLOSSARY OF TERMS Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g., a building having 10,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a lot of 5,000 sq. ft. in area has a floor area ratio of 2:1). General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long -term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements, such as Economic Development, Urban Design, and other s are permitted. Group Quarters: A facility which houses unrelated persons not living in households (U.S. Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single - room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed. Growth Management: Techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, location and type of development. HCD: The State Department of Housing and Community Development. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires larger lending institutions making home mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of home purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender, race, and income of loan applicants. HOME Program: The HOME Investment Partnership Act, Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. HOME is a Federal program which provides formula grants to States and localities to fund activities that build, buy, and /or rehabilitate affordable housing or provide direct rental assistance to low- income people. Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned buildings). Sheltered homeless are families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter. Household: The US Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is considered a household. Household does not include individuals in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters. Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. A household is usually described as very low income, low income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household size, and income, relative to the regional median income. Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than 30% of income on housing cost. City of Moorpark A -3 Housing Element GLOSSARY OF TERMS Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is "project" or "unit" based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of subsidy is said to be "tenant based." Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet and kitchen facilities. HUD: See U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household according to the median income for the county. Under state housing statutes, these categories are as follows: Very Low (0 -50% of County median); Low (50 -80% of County median); Moderate (80 -120% of County median); and Upper (over 120% of County median). Large Household: A household with 5 or more members. Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing. Market Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location. Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median. Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation. Mortgage Revenue Bond(MRB): A state, county or city program providing financing for the development of housing through the sale of tax - exempt bonds. Overcrowding: As defined by the U.S. Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.51 persons per room are. Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Severe overpayment, or cost burden, exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income. City of Moorpark A -4 Housing Element GLOSSARY OF TERMS Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon. Physical Defects: A housing unit lacking complete kitchen or bathroom facilities (U.S. Census definition). Jurisdictions may expand the Census definition in defining units with physical defects. Project -Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. A tenant receiving project -based rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project. Public Housing: A project -based low -rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low- income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live. Redevelopment Agency: California Law provides cities with the authority to establish a Redevelopment Agency with the scope and financing mechanisms necessary to remedy blight and provide stimulus to eliminate deteriorated conditions. The law provides for the planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, and the provision of public and private improvements as may be appropriate in the interest of the general welfare by the Agency. Redevelopment law requires an Agency to set aside 20 percent of all tax increment dollars generated from each redevelopment project area for the purpose of increasing and improving the community's supply of housing for low and moderate income households. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is based on State projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county. Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use. Section 8 Rental Voucher /Certificate Program: A tenant -based rental assistance program that subsidizes a family's rent in a privately owned house or apartment. Local public housing authorities administer the program. Assistance payments are based on 30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program. Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household consists of two to four non - elderly persons. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): The Southern California Association of Governments is a regional planning agency which encompasses the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible for preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). City of Moorpark A -5, Housing Element GLOSSARY OF TERMS Special Needs Groups: Groups which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under Housing Element statutes, special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female- headed households, farmworkers and the homeless. A jurisdiction may also consider additional special needs groups (e.g., students, military personnel, etc). in their community. Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.). Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum standards contained in the State Housing Code (i.e. does not provide shelter, endangers the health, safety or well -being of occupants). Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard housing. Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: Substandard units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered economically warranted. Substandard, Needs Replacement: Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit has been damaged by fire. Supportive Housing: Housing with a supporting environment, such as group homes or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing and other housing that includes a supportive service component such as those defined below. Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training. Tenant -Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project. Transitional Housing: Transitional housing is temporary (often six months to two years) housing for a homeless individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. Transitional housing often includes a supportive services component (e.g. job skills training, rehabilitation counseling, etc.) to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and Section 8. Zoning: A land use regulatory measure enacted by local government. Zoning district regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards vary from district to district, but must be uniform within the same district. Each city and county adopts a zoning ordinance specifying these regulations. City of Moorpark A -6 Housing Element