HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 0119 CCSA REG ITEM 09ACITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of January 19, 2022
ACTION APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION. (ROLL CALL
VOTE: UNANIMOUS).
BY K. Spangler.
A. Consider Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element and Authorize Staff to
Forward the Draft to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development for Review and Comment. Staff Recommendation: Consider the
Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element (Housing Element) and authorize
staff to forward the Draft to HCD for review and comment. (Staff: Doug Spondello,
Planning Manager).
Item: 9.A.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Doug Spondello, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: 01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element and
Authorize Staff to Forward the Draft to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development for Review and Comment
BACKGROUND
The City of Moorpark’s Housing Element, a chapter of the General Plan, is the City’s
blueprint for facilitating the provision of housing opportunities for all residents. The City
of Moorpark is required to update its General Plan Housing Element to identify and
analyze existing and projected housing needs within City limits and to prepare goals,
policies, programs, and objectives to further the development and preservation of housing
(Government Code §65583). Projected housing needs are established by the City,
regional government (Southern California Association of Governments), and the State.
The State and regional government’s determination of housing needs is known as the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). While the City is not responsible for
constructing housing units, it must adopt land use policies that provide feasible
opportunities to build the housing units to meet the identified needs.
Unlike most chapters of the General Plan which will identify long-term objectives through
2050, current state law requires the Housing Element to be updated every eight years
and examines a shorter timeframe. The City’s current Housing Element covers the
planning timeframe of 2014-2021. The proposed Housing Element addresses 2021-
2029. Unlike other General Plan chapters which tend towards high-level goals and
policies, the Housing Element is a detailed document due to the numerous statutory
requirements that govern the content that must be addressed. As such, the Housing
Element is the only chapter of the General Plan that must be reviewed and certified by
the California Departent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adopted by
the City Council to achieve compliance with state law.
The City has contracted with PlaceWorks, Inc. to update the Housing Element as part of
the comprehensive update of the General Plan. The Draft Housing Element reflects an
extensive public outreach process. Following public review of the Draft Housing Element
Item: 9.A.
1
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 2
and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Draft Housing
Element will be submitted to HCD for preliminary review. The Draft Housing Element will
then be revised to address HCD comments. Once revised, the public can continue to
provide input. The process will culminate with a public hearing with the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider adoption of the Housing Element. The
document will then be submitted to HCD for final certification. This is anticipated to take
place in late summer 2022.
The Planning Commission considered the Draft Housing Element at a special meeting on
January 13, 2022. Public comments were provided by two individuals. Bernardo Perez
expressed support for the Draft and provided comments on behalf of House Farm
Workers! Sharon Noel expressed concerns regarding the Draft providing capacity for
housing beyond the minimum RHNA assignement from HCD. The Planning Commission
voted unainmously to recommend that the City Council authorize staff to forward the Draft
to HCD for review. Staff will consider all comments provided and integrate those that are
aligned with the goals of the Housing Element into the final draft that is presented for
adoption later in the year.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The motto for the General Plan update is “Made by Moorpark”, a statement that
emphasizes the importance of the community’s voice and active role in the planning
process. As a result, all aspects of the General Plan and Housing Element have included
significant and meaningful input from the community. While the updated Housing
Element is focused on an eight-year planning cycle, discussions with the public and
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) about the City’s housing objectives began
within the context of the broader 30-year framework of the comprehensive General Plan
update. These discussions focused on Moorpark - who we are, and our community’s
aspirations as we plan to 2050.
General Plan Vision Statement
The General Plan Vision Statement is a high-level, foundational description about the
community’s desires for the City in 2050. The Vision Statement guides the development
of the long-term goals and policies that will be included in the General Plan, to strategically
align the City’s actions with the community’s vision of the future.
On November 19, 2020, staff hosted a Community Visioning Workshop to receive public
input regarding how the community should look and feel in the year 2050. Participants
used a web-based survey to provide 207 comments describing the community’s vision
for Moorpark on a variety of topics. Following the Community Visioning Workshop, staff
provided an additional week for the public to provide input using the survey platform and
advertised this on social media. After the workshop, public input was reviewed and
2
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 3
organized to identify more specific vision themes and overarching values that would be
used by the GPAC to prepare the draft Vision Statement.
To encourage participation and gather input for the General Plan update and community
visioning discussion, staff launched a robust outreach program consisting of pop-up
outreach events, personal outreach by the GPAC, public signage, a project website, and
digital and print media outreach in English and in Spanish.
On December 10, 2020, the GPAC met to develop the draft Vision Statement. In drafting
the statement, the GPAC considered all public input received through the Community
Attitudes Survey, the October 22, 2020, GPAC meeting, and the November 19
Community Visioning Workshop. The GPAC unanimously recommended, and the City
Council approved the following Vision Statement for the 2050 General Plan:
“Moorpark in 2050 is a virtually and physically connected community that
provides a sustainable, diverse, inclusive, equitable and safe place to live,
work, and play for all generations. Moorpark supports and values local
businesses, arts and education, innovation, healthy living, and maintains its
family-oriented small-town feel. We are stewards of the environment and
honor our agricultural and cultural heritage. We balance these values to
maintain a high quality of life for our residents.”
This Vision Statement, along with the City Council’s Goal for 2021-2023 to “Identify
Options and Solutions to Barriers for Housing for All Economic and Age Ranges,” formed
the foundation for the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and programs.
General Plan Advisory Committee
The 16-member General Plan Advisory Committee provided extensive input, feedback,
and recommendations on the Housing Element. All GPAC meetings were duly advertised
and open to the public who could attend either in person or online. All materials are
available at http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/participate/gpac/. The GPAC examined a
variety of topics relevant to the Housing Element, including housing sites; housing needs
and trends; housing goals, policies, and programs. A summary of GPAC meetings is
provided below.
• Oct. 1, 2020. GPAC Orientation
• Oct. 22, 2020. Visioning
• Dec. 10, 2020. Visioning
• Nov. 12, 2020 Existing Conditions
• Feb. 25, 2021. Opportunity Sites
• Mar. 18, 2021. Opportunity Sites
• Apr. 29, 2021. Development Types and Housing
• May 27, 2021. Land Use + Opportunity Sites
• Jul. 10, 2021. Land Use Workshop
• Sep. 2, 2021. Housing Issues
• Dec. 9, 2021. Housing Goals and Programs
• Dec. 16, 2021. Land Use Opportunity Areas
3
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 4
Special Consultations
The City conducted direct consultations with community stakeholders and developers
during the update of the Housing Element. These conversations helped to refine the
issues and priorities for the 2021-2029 Housing Element and ensure that a well-rounded
assessment of the City’s housing needs and opportunities was included in the Draft.
Interviews included:
• Farmworker Housing Interests (House Farmworkers);
• Homeless Service Providers (County of Ventura);
• Senior Service Agencies (City of Moorpark, Area Agency on Aging);
• Disabled Person Organizations (Independent Living Center, Tri County Regional);
• Fair Housing (Housing Rights Center, state and federal fair housing agencies);
• College Student, Faculty, and Employees (Moorpark College);
• Affordable Housing Developers (People’s Self Help, Habitat, etc.); and,
• Market Rate Housing Developers (Private Developers and Architects).
Public Review of Draft Housing Element
The Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element (Attachment 1) has been published
for a 30-day public review period culminating on January 22, 2022. Any input received
will be reviewed alongside feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council prior
to submittal of the Draft to HCD.
HOUSING ELEMENT STRUCTURE AND COMPONENTS
Moorpark’s updated Housing Element is the City’s plan for addressing its housing needs
over the next eight-year planning cycle – from 2021 through 2029. Like all content of the
General Plan, the Housing Element is aligned to the 2050 Vision Statement. The Housing
Element goals and policies reflect the City’s commitment to:
• maintaining the quality and character of the community;
• sustaining commercial and industrial business sectors;
• complementing the historic flavor of downtown;
• reflecting the City’s General Plan Vision Statement;
• identifying options and solutions to barriers for housing for all;
• providing housing for future generations of Moorpark residents; and,
• furthering equal and fair housing opportunities for all residents.
4
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 5
The Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element contains the following sections:
• Introduction. Includes an overview of the community, the statutory authority and requirements, related planning efforts, overview of the outreach process that informed the development of the Housing Element, and process for maintaining consistency with other parts of the General Plan.
• Needs Assessment. Analysis of demographic, social, and housing characteristics; special housing needs; and current and future housing needs due to population growth, demographic change, and other factors affecting housing need, including a focus on fair housing.
• Constraints Analysis. Analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that affect the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all income groups and people with disabilities. This chapter includes an assessment of fair housing required under AB 686.
• Housing Resources. Inventory of resources available to address the city's housing needs,
including available land for housing, and the financial resources and administrative
capacity to manage housing programs. This includes a focus on fair housing.
• Housing Plan. The goals, policies, and programs to address the development,
improvement, and conservation of housing and provision of fair housing opportunities to
meet the needs of Moorpark. Also includes an evaluation of accomplishments of the prior
element.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
One of the primary purposes of the Housing Element is to demonstrate that the City can
meets its RHNA – which is the ability (but not obligation) to develop a specific number of
units within a defined eight-year period. The RHNA is mandated by State housing law as
part of the Housing Element. HCD works with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and all local jurisdictions to determine the number of housing units
to be assigned to each jurisdiction. These units are also assigned to specific income
ranges to promote affordability. These income levels are a percentage of the Ventura
County Area Median Income (AMI) of $98,800. A summary of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle)
RHNA obligations are outlined in the following table:
Table 1 – Moorpark 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation
Household Income Category Housing Units
Very Low Income (31%-50% AMI) 377
Low Income (51%-80% AMI) 233
Moderate Income (81%-120% AMI) 245
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 434
Total 1,289
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020.
5
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 6
Again, the State does not require the 1,289 housing units allocated to Moorpark be built
over the next planning period. Rather, the City must demonstrate that there is available
land and appropriate zoning and development standards in place to facilitate and
encourage the development of these units. As shown in Table 2, the City relies on
pipeline projects, many of which were used for the 2014-2021 (5th Cycle) Housing
Element to meet the RHNA. While utilizing projects from a past housing cycle is
permitted, revisions to state law make it more difficult to “reuse” unbuilt and pending
projects without significant commitments towards programming and the active facilitation
of housing. These commitments are negotiated through the HCD review process.
Table 2 – 2021-2029 RHNA Accommodation Summary
RHNA and Credits Housing Affordability Levels by Income
Lower Moderate Above Mod Total
RHNA 610 245 434 1,289
Credits
+ Approved Projects 259 11 616 886
+ Pending Projects 410 250 1,033 1,693
+ Accessory Dwellings 57 53 14 124
Subtotal 726 314 1,663 2,695
Summary RHNA Met RHNA Met RHNA Met RHNA Met
Note: Very low and low income is combined for presentation purposes
Housing Element Goals and Policies
As mentioned earlier, the Housing Element is the City’s blueprint for expanding housing
opportunities for all residents. The Housing Plan section contains a series of goals,
policies, and implementation programs to address local housing needs. As the City looks
forward through 2029, the Housing Plan is intended to reflect three major emphases:
1) State law requirements to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement,
and development of housing for residents of all income levels in a manner that
affirmatively furthers fair housing;
2) Local needs for a broader mix of affordable, accessible, and quality housing that
serves the needs of all residents; and
3) City Council’s strategic goal to identify options and solutions to barriers for housing
for all economic and age ranges.
The following goals and policies proposed for the 2021-2029 Housing Element are listed
below and correspond to the attached Draft Housing Element. These goals have been
carefully designed to align with the General Plan Vision Statement, community input, and
statutory requirements of the State of California:
6
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 7
Topic: Housing and Neighborhood Quality
• GOAL HE-1: Provide neighborhoods of well-maintained homes, ample public
services and facilities, open spaces and recreation, and infrastructure that
provide quality places to reside.
• POLICY HE-1.1 Building Code Compliance. Ensure that all new housing
construction adheres to applicable building, safety, health, and energy
conservation requirements.
• POLICY HE-1.2 Code Compliance. Monitor and enforce building and property
maintenance code standards and enlist volunteer participation in maintaining
housing and residential neighborhoods.
• POLICY - -HE-1.3 Neighborhood Amenities. Provide public safety services,
infrastructure maintenance, and other public services to maintain the quality of
neighborhoods, and the environment.
• POLICY HE-1.4 Housing Investment. Facilitate the repair, revitalization, and
rehabilitation of residential structures to provide safe and healthful housing
opportunities for all residents.
• POLICY HE-1.5 Historic Preservation. Support the designation, preservation, and
maintenance of historically and/or architecturally significant buildings.
• POLICY HE-1.6 Neighborhood Revitalization. Prioritize funding to rehabilitate
housing, provide services, and improve infrastructure in older neighborhoods that
have experienced limited investment.
Topic: Housing Assistance
• GOAL HE-2: Facilitate expansion, improvement, and preservation of housing
options and support the provision of housing assistance for lower, moderate
income, and/or special needs households.
• POLICY HE-2.1 Financial Assistance. Use public financial resources, to the
extent feasible, to support provision of housing for lower income and special
needs households.
• POLICY HE-2.2 Rental/Ownership Assistance. Support county efforts to provide
rental assistance and provide homeownership assistance to expand options for
low-moderate income buyers.
• POLICY HE-2.3 Preservation of Affordable Housing. Support the conservation
and preservation of mobile home park, publicly subsidized housing, and other
sources of affordable housing.
• POLICY HE-2.4 Inclusionary Housing. Require 15% of newly constructed units in
qualified ownership and rental housing developments to be affordable to lower-
moderate income households.
7
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 8
• POLICY HE-2.5 Collaborative Partnerships. Participate in and support
collaborative partnerships that provide funding and assistance for the
development, improvement, and preservation of housing.
• POLICY HE-2.6 Supportive Services. Provide assistance, where feasible,
financial and administrative resources to community-based organizations serving
Moorpark residents.
Topic: Housing Opportunities
• GOAL HE-3: Facilitate well-designed housing that is diverse in product type,
occupancy, location, affordability, and tenure and that meets the existing and
future needs of residents.
• POLICY HE-3.1 Housing Sites. Identify adequate sites to be made available and
zoned at the appropriate densities, to achieve housing goals set forth in the
RHNA.
• POLICY HE-3.2 Adequate Service Levels. Ensure residential sites and
developments have appropriate and adequate levels of public services, facilities,
circulation, and other infrastructure and services.
• POLICY HE-3.3 Housing Design. Encourage exemplary design in housing
architecture, site layout, and landscaping consistent with the General Plan,
design standards, and sustainability principles.
• POLICY HE-3.4 Mixed Use Development. Promote and encourage mixed-use
residential and commercial uses, where appropriate, to create more vibrant
neighborhoods and activity centers.
• POLICY HE-3.5 Expanded Housing Options. Support and facilitate a broader
range of housing options for college students and faculty, farmworkers, disabled
people, seniors, and homeless people.
• POLICY HE-3.6 Missing Middle Income. Support the development of missing
middle-income housing, including smaller courtyard housing, triplex/duplexes,
cottage housing, and other small-lot developments.
Topic: Housing Constraints
• GOAL HE-4: Where appropriate, mitigate to the extent feasible, constraints to the
production, maintenance, and improvement of housing.
• POLICY HE-4.1 Municipal Ordinances. Periodically review City regulations,
ordinances, and fees/exactions to ensure they do not unduly constrain the
production, maintenance, and improvement of housing.
• POLICY HE-4.2 Regulatory Concessions. Offer regulatory incentives and
concessions for affordable housing, including relief from development standards
and density bonuses where appropriate.
8
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 9
• POLICY HE-4.3 Permit Processing. Provide for streamlined, timely, coordinated,
and concurrent processing of residential projects to minimize holding cots and
encourage the production of housing.
• POLICY HE-4.4 Infill/Mixed Use. Support infill residential and mixed use
development at suitable locations and provide, where appropriate and feasible,
incentives to facilitate their development.
• POLICY HE-4.5 Administrative Exceptions. Offer administrative exceptions to
standards, where feasible, that will be needed to facilitate and encourage the
production of housing.
• POLICY HE-4.6 Land Assemblage. Facilitate the acquisition, consolidation, and
disposition of land in accordance with state law to support the development of
affordable housing.
Topic: Fair Housing
• Goal HE-5: Further equity in the provision, type, and affordability of housing and
the availability of services for all Moorpark residents.
• POLICY HE-5.1 Fair Housing Services. Support fair housing services to
residents, property owners, landlords, lenders, and others in the provision,
financing, and occupancy of housing.
• POLICY HE-5.2 Prohibit Discrimination. Work to end discrimination in either the
sale, rental, financing, or occupancy of housing on the basis of state or federal
protected classes.-
• POLICY HE-5.3 Equitable Access to Resources. Work to ensure that all
neighborhoods have fair access to public facilities, supporting infrastructure, and
community services.
• POLICY HE-5.4 Inclusive Public Participation. Provide an open and receptive
forum for City residents, commissions, stakeholders, and City staff to discuss
opportunities to improve fair housing.
• POLICY HE-5.5 Municipal Practices. Administer municipal programs and
activities relating to community development and housing in a manner that
affirmatively furthers fair housing.
NEXT STEPS
The City Council is asked to review and comment on the Draft Housing Element, its
policies, programs, and overall strategy to meet the City’s RHNA. After addressing public
comments and recommendations from the Commission and Council, staff will submit the
Draft Housing Element to HCD for an initial 90-day review period. HCD will provide initial
comments on the Draft. Following the response from HCD, Staff will bring the revised
Draft back to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. The adoption
9
Honorable City Council
01/19/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 10
hearings will include an analysis of potential impacts pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the submittal of the Draft Housing
Element to HCD. Fiscal impacts associated with the development of housing outlined in
the Draft will be evaluated as each project advances and through separate efforts, such
as the comprehensive fee update currently underway.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action is consistent with the following City Council 2021-2023 Strategies, Goals and
Objectives:
Goal 1 – “Identify Options and Solutions to Barriers for Housing for All Economic and Age
Ranges.”
Goal 1, Objective 1.3 – “Complete the 6th Cycle Housing Element, which will
include housing opportunity sites, and goals and policies to support the creation of
housing for all.” and;
Goal 3 – “Emphasis on Economic Development with a Focus on Historic High Street to
Enhance a Destination and Sense of Community.”
Goal 3, Objective 3.7 – “Complete the Comprehensive General Plan Update
which will include elements dedicated to Land Use and Economic Development.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Consider the Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element (Housing Element) and
authorize staff to forward the Draft to HCD for review and comment.
Attachment: Draft 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element (also available at:
moorparkgeneralplan.com/housing-element)
10
ATTACHMENT
11
Acknowledgements
CITY COUNCIL
Janice Parvin, Mayor
Dr. Antonio Castro, Mayor Pro Tem
Chris Enegren, Councilmember
Daniel Groff, Councilmember
David Pollock, Councilmember
PLANNING COMMISSION
Leanne Alva
Chris Barrett
Jeff Brodsly
Kipp Landis
Bruce Rokos
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mark Di Cecco, Chair
Isabelle Becker
John Billin
Alejandro Castro
Theresa Hagman-Lawson
Terri Hilliard-Olson
Ashley Humes
Robert Jacobs
Catherine Kniazewycz
John Loprien
Sharon Noel
R Reddy Pakala
Alondra Serna
Julius Sokenu
Mike Winters
Matthew Eason
CITY OF MOORPARK
Troy Brown, City Manager
Brian Chong, Assistant to the City Manager
Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director
Doug Spondello, AICP, Planning Manager
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
Tamar R. Gantt, Program Manager (Housing)
Freddy Carrillo, Associate Planner II
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
PlaceWorks
Mark Hoffman, Housing Element Project Lead
12
This page intentionally left blank.
13
Table of Contents
Section Page
HOUSING ELEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
4.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
4.1.2 Statutory Authority ......................................................................................................................................... 2
4.1.3 Related Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 3
4.1.4 Public Engagement ......................................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Population and Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 5
4.2.2 Neighborhoods .............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.3 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.4 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.5 Affordable Housing Projects ..................................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Housing Constraints .................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.3.1 Nongovernmental Constraints ................................................................................................................. 35
4.3.2 Land Use and Housing Opportunities ................................................................................................... 45
4.3.3 Residential Development Standards ...................................................................................................... 53
4.3.4 Development Permit Procedures ............................................................................................................. 62
4.4 Fair Housing Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 66
4.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
4.4.2 Fair Housing Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 68
4.4.3 Assessment of Opportunity ....................................................................................................................... 74
4.4.4 Contributing Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 94
4.5 Housing Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 100
4.5.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................................................................... 100
4.5.2 Housing Production ................................................................................................................................... 102
4.5.3 Fair Housing Implications for Sites ...................................................................................................... 110
4.5.4 Summary of Projects and Credits Toward the RHNA ................................................................... 112
4.5.5 Financial and Administrative Resources ............................................................................................. 114
14
4.6 Housing Program Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 118
4.6.1 Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................................ 118
4.6.2 Progress in Implementing Housing Element Programs ............................................................... 119
4.6.3 Housing Element Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 124
4.7 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 127
4.6.1 Housing Goals and Policies .................................................................................................................... 128
4.6.2 Housing Programs...................................................................................................................................... 133
Figures
Figure Page
Figure 4-1 Moorpark Neighborhood Areas .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4-2 Housing Type in Moorpark ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 4-3 Housing Prices in Moorpark, 2012-20 ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-4 Moorpark Apartment Rents, 2015-20 .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-5 Moorpark Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4-6 Locations Where Emergency Shelters Are Permitted ...................................................................... 50
Figure 4-7 Moorpark, Predominant Race-Ethnic Groups ..................................................................................... 82
Figure 4-8 Moorpark, Median Household Income by Census Block Group ................................................. 83
Figure 4-9 Moorpark, Prevalence of Children in Married Family Couples ..................................................... 84
Figure 4-10 Moorpark, Prevalence of People with a Disability ............................................................................. 85
Figure 4-11 Moorpark, Prevalence of Overcrowding ............................................................................................... 86
Figure 4-12 Moorpark, Prevalence of Renter Overpayment .................................................................................. 87
Figure 4-13 Moorpark, Prevalence of Homeowner Overpayment ...................................................................... 88
Figure 4-14 Moorpark, Opportunity Resources, Composite ................................................................................. 89
Figure 4-15 Moorpark, Educational Resources ........................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4-16 Moorpark, Economic Resources............................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-17 Moorpark, Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4-18 Approved or Pending Developments in Moorpark ........................................................................ 108
15
Tables
Table Page
Table 4-1 Population Estimates, 2000-2030 ............................................................................................................... 5
Table 4-2 Population Characteristics in Moorpark................................................................................................... 6
Table 4-3 Household Characteristics in Moorpark, 2010-2018 ........................................................................... 7
Table 4-4 Employment Characteristics in Moorpark, 2018 ................................................................................... 8
Table 4-5 Household Income Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 9
Table 4-6 Household Tenure and Vacancy, 2010-2018 ...................................................................................... 10
Table 4-7 Housing Estimates, 2000-2030 ................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4-8 Housing Built by Decade ............................................................................................................................ 17
Table 4-9 Housing Sales Prices in Moorpark .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 4-10 Housing Rents in Moorpark ...................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4-11 Affordability of Housing .............................................................................................................................. 21
Table 4-12 Housing Overpayment and Overcrowding .......................................................................................... 23
Table 4-13 Special Housing Needs Groups in Moorpark ..................................................................................... 24
Table 4-14 Housing Problems of Lower Income Households ............................................................................. 31
Table 4-15 Publicly Assisted Affordable Housing .................................................................................................... 33
Table 4-16 List of Qualified Entities in Ventura County ......................................................................................... 34
Table 4-17 Street Infrastructure Requirements ........................................................................................................ 39
Table 4-18 Residential Planning and Building Fees ................................................................................................ 42
Table 4-19 Residential Development Fee Burden in Moorpark ......................................................................... 43
Table 4-20 Existing General Plan Residential Land Use Categories .................................................................. 45
Table 4-21 Residential Land Uses by Zone ................................................................................................................. 46
Table 4-22 Residential Development Standards ...................................................................................................... 53
Table 4-23 Residential Parking Requirements .......................................................................................................... 54
Table 4-24 Suitability of RPD-20 Zone for Affordable Housing ......................................................................... 56
Table 4-25 Development Time Frames ........................................................................................................................ 64
Table 4-26 Predominant Population by Neighborhood ....................................................................................... 68
Table 4-27 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions ......................................... 98
Table 4-28 Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029..................................................... 100
Table 4-29 Approved and Planned Residential Projects in Moorpark ........................................................... 112
Table 4-30 Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029..................................................... 113
16
Table 4-31 2014-2021 Housing Element Objectives and Accomplishments ............................................... 118
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress ........................................................................ 119
Table 4-33 Highlights of Selected Program Changes based on Outreach................................................... 126
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period ............................................................................. 146
17
The City of Moorpark encompasses 12 square miles and
is one of 10 incorporated cities of Ventura County. It is
bounded by Simi Valley to the east, the Tierra Rejada
Valley and Thousand Oaks to the south, and
unincorporated lands to the west and north. Lands west
of the city are largely agricultural and protected from
development by the Save Open Space and Agricultural
Resources (SOAR) initiatives designed to preserve open
space and limit urban sprawl. The city is connected to
the broader region by State Route (SR-) 118 and SR-23
to the south and SR-118 to the west.
Incorporated on July 1, 1983, Moorpark’s most dramatic period of growth occurred in its early years. This
period saw a substantial shift in the Moorpark’s center of activity, with large-scale development in many
areas that had been used for agriculture. High Street and the surrounding area remained the social and
retail center of Moorpark through the 1980s until commercial activity began to shift to the south, and
suburban-style, multitenant retail centers grew along Los Angeles Avenue. Significant growth in home
construction accelerated as the development of subdivisions such as Mountain Meadows and Peach Hill
expanded the city’s built footprint from the flatlands into the surrounding hillsides.
Looking forward, the City has set a course that is intended to yield community-wide benefits. Completion
of specific plans will provide for a mix of housing suitable for different ages and income levels. These will
not only include traditional single-family homes—condominiums, townhomes, and apartments will also
enhance opportunities for residents of all incomes and ages to live in Moorpark. Mixed-use products will
also be strategically introduced, lending to a more vibrant downtown, attracting commercial
opportunities in activity centers, and supporting the unique blend of historic and modern themes. And
special needs housing will be a priority for meeting unmet community needs.
Moorpark’s 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City’s comprehensive plan for addressing its current and
future housing needs. The Housing Element goals and policies reflect a commitment to: maintaining the
quality and character of the community; sustaining commercial and industrial business sector;
complementing the historic flavor of downtown; reflecting the city’s General Plan vision; identifying
options and solutions to barriers for housing for all; providing housing for future generations of Moorpark
residents; and furthering equal and fair housing opportunities for all residents.
18
California law requires that all local governments develop a Housing Element and housing programs to
meet their "fair share" of existing and future housing needs for all income groups. Therefore, the City of
Moorpark, along with all local governments in California, must prepare a Housing Element to meet its
local housing needs. The Housing Element must contain goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the
development, improvement, and preservation of housing commensurate with the housing need
established by the city, regional government, and the State of California.
This Housing Element covers the planning period of 2021 to 2029. Requirements for the content of the
Housing Element are found in Article 10.6 of Chapter 3 of Planning and Zoning Law, commencing with
Government Code Section 65580 et seq. The Housing Element is the most complex chapter in the General
Plan and the only element that must be completely updated on a fixed schedule and receive a letter of
compliance from the State of California.
State law prescribes the scope of the Housing Element and various requirements in accordance with
Section 65583 of the Government Code. The 2021-2029 Moorpark Housing Element contains the
following sections:
• Introduction. Includes an overview, the statutory authority and requirements, related planning efforts,
overview of the outreach process that informed the development of the Housing Element, and process
for maintaining consistency with other parts of the General Plan.
• Needs Assessment. Analysis of demographic, social, and housing characteristics; special housing
needs; and current and future housing needs due to population growth, demographic change, and
other factors affecting housing need, including focus on fair housing.
• Constraints Analysis. Analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that affect the
development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for all income groups and people with
disabilities. This chapter includes an assessment of fair housing required under AB 686.
• Housing Resources. Inventory of resources available to address the city's housing needs, including
available land for housing, and the financial resources and administrative capacity to manage housing
programs. This includes a focus on fair housing.
• Housing Plan. The goals, policies, and programs to address the development, improvement, and
conservation of housing and provision of fair housing opportunities to meet the needs of San Dimas.
Also includes an evaluation of accomplishments of the prior element.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element update replaces the City's previously adopted 2014-2021 Housing
Element and its associated implementation plan.
19
Moorpark’s 2021-2029 Housing Element is directly related to local-, regional-, and state-mandated
planning efforts. The following text describes the relationship of the Housing Element with these planning
efforts and how the City maintains consistency with each effort.
General Plan
In 2020, the City of Moorpark began a comprehensive update of its General Plan, including its Housing
Element. The 2021-2029 Housing Element is updated in concert with other elements of the General Plan
to ensure consistency. Changes in the land use element will plan for the appropriate amount of land and
land use designations necessary for the City to meet its local housing needs, and the Housing Element’s
goals, policies, and programs will reflect these changes. As required by California law, the safety element
has been updated in concert with the Housing Element, and the safety element has provided critical
information about the location of natural and human caused hazards that informed the Housing Element.
As required by state law, the Housing Element will periodically be updated over the 2021-2029 planning
period to maintain consistency with the Moorpark General Plan as amendments are proposed.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
As the metropolitan planning organization for Ventura County jurisdictions, including Moorpark, the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has the responsibility for allocating the regional
fair share of housing needs, assigned by the State of California, to the jurisdictions under its planning
authority. The allocation of housing needs is based on statewide and local projections of population,
employment, and household trends. California requires local governments to ensure that adequate sites,
public facilities, infrastructure, and services are available to facilitate housing production in accordance
with their assigned share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA for the 2021 to
2029 planning period is 1,289 new housing units divided into affordability levels. The Housing Element
contains goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s share of the region’s housing need.
Other Related Planning Efforts
During the 2021-2029 planning period for the housing element, the City of Moorpark continues to
implement adopted plans and will conduct initiatives that implement the Housing Element. Three
adopted specific plans provide sites to accommodate the housing goals set forth in the 2021-2029 RHNA.
These plans are the Carlsberg Specific Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Moorpark Highlands (Phase II).
The Zoning Code, and a planned comprehensive update, will be initiated following adoption of the
general plan update to implement proposed revisions to development processes, zoning districts, and
other associated items. The Housing Element is consistent with its adopted specific plans and zoning
codes and will be amended, as necessary, to address the City’s RHNA or maintain consistency with related
planning efforts, to the extent required by and in accordance with state law.
20
State law requires cities to make a "diligent effort" to achieve participation by all segments of the city in
the Housing Element. As the Housing Element update is part of an overall update to the General Plan,
Moorpark solicited input from the public throughout the Housing Element process—during development
of the draft element, public review of the draft element, and the adoption process. The City’s public
participation program included three major venues, described briefly below and in Chapter 4.6.3.
• General Plan and Housing Element outreach. An extensive public engagement and participation
program was implemented for the General Plan update and Housing Element. These included
» Community Events. Multiple community workshops.
» Community Surveys. Conducted General Plan and quality of life surveys.
» General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). More than one dozen meetings.
» Special Needs Consultations. More than a dozen interviews with stakeholders.
The many comments received from the above venues were incorporated into the housing needs
assessment, constraints analysis, and the goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element.
• Housing Element Posting and Hearing. The City maintained a website for the General Plan update;
moorparkgeneralplan.com. The website includes notifications and results of opportunities for public
engagement, surveys, and documents, including draft versions of the Housing Element. The draft
Housing Element was posted on December 22, 2021 and was available online for 30 days before public
hearing. Comments received during the public review and comment period were included in the public
record and brought forward to the Planning Commission for consideration on January 13, 2022 City
Council on January 19, 2022.
• State of California Review. The draft Housing Element was transmitted to the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which is required to thoroughly review the draft for
compliance with statutes. In making their review, HCD incorporates third party comments and issues
a letter to the City on their findings. HCD’s letter(s) on the City’s Housing Element can be accessed
online at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml. Once
received, the City made revisions to the draft Housing Element where needed.
• Public Hearings. The City of Moorpark held one public hearing and will hold two additional public
hearings on the draft Housing Element. The first public hearing, held on February 3, 2021, occurred
prior to submittal of the Housing Element to HCD for their review. Comments received at the hearing
were incorporated into the draft. Following receipt of the draft comments and incorporation into the
Housing Element, the City will hold two public hearings for adoption. The Planning Commission will
review the draft on January 13, 2022, and the City Council will consider adoption the Housing Element
on January 19, 2022. The final Housing Element can be found online at:
www.moorparkca.gov/HousingElement.
21
This chapter discusses Moorpark’s demographic, economic, housing, and special needs characteristics
and trends in order to identify the city’s existing and future housing needs. This community profile
provides a foundation for responsive goals, policies, and programs in the element.
Population Growth
Moorpark is the sixth most populous city in Ventura County, with a population of 36,284 as of 2020,
according to the Department of Finance. Moorpark experienced significant growth during its first decade
following incorporation, increasing by more than 500% as large specific plan developments replaced
former agricultural lands; the city was one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. Following the initial
rise in development typical for most newly incorporated communities, Moorpark’s population growth
slowed in later decades.
Communities in the eastern Ventura County region have seen residential development in recent decades,
resulting in corresponding population growth. Shown in Table 4-1, surrounding communities saw
substantial increases in population growth from 2000 to 2020. Compared to its neighbors, the City of
Camarillo has grown the fastest (24%), followed Moorpark (15%) Simi Valley (13%), Thousand Oaks (9%),
and Santa Paula (7%).
Table 4-1 Population Estimates, 2000-2030
Population Estimates % Change
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000-2020 2020-2030
Moorpark 31,415 34,421 36,284 40,259 15% 11%
Simi Valley 111,351 124,237 126,356 134,390 13% 6%
Thousand Oaks 117,005 126,683 126,966 133,880 9% 5%
Camarillo 57,077 65,201 70,741 74,239 24% 5%
Santa Paula 28,598 29,321 30,657 32,849 7% 7%
Sources: Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates.
Note: Projected population is based on extrapolation of average household size in 2020 applied to the 2021-2029 RHNA.
Looking forward, the City of Moorpark expects continued residential development on remaining vacant
lots, underperforming nonresidential areas, and in specific plans (such as Moorpark Highlands, Hitch
Ranch, and others.). As the General Plan update designates future areas for residential growth, the city
will see gradual increase in population from 2020–2030, and is projecting an 11% growth rate.
22
Population Characteristics
Moorpark’s population characteristics influence housing need. Different age groups have different needs
based on lifestyles, family types, income, and housing preference. Typically, younger households seek
affordable rental housing as they begin a career and build wealth. As adults spend more time in the
workforce and form families, they may seek opportunities to build equity through ownership. Seniors may
eventually trade down large homes that once accommodated children to smaller, more affordable homes.
Over the 2000s, Ventura County cities have aged as a whole, and Moorpark is no exception. In Moorpark,
the median age stands at 38 years, an increase from the median age of 35 recorded in 2010. The largest
single age group, as of 2018, is the 45 to 64 years age group, comprising 29%of residents (Table 4-2).
Seniors ages 65 years and older have been the fastest growing age group, increasing 78%. Children and
youth declined 12%, a decline that has been going on for some time.
Moorpark has seen more-modest race and ethnic changes in its population since 2010. The largest group,
at 54% of the city’s population, reported white as their race. Hispanic, the second largest group,
comprised 32% of the population. Over the past eight years, all race and ethnic groups in Moorpark, apart
from whites, increased in number. As a result, the white share of the population decreased while all other
groups increased their shares of the city’s population from 2010 to 2018.
Table 4-2 Population Characteristics in Moorpark
20101 20182
Population Characteristics Number of
Residents
Percent of
Total
Number of
Residents
Percent of
Total
Percent
Change
Age Characteristics
0-17 years (dependent) 9,459 27% 8,362 23% -12%
18-24 years (youth-in-transition) 3,631 11% 3,767 10% 4%
25-44 years (family forming years) 8,825 26% 9,145 25% 4%
45-64 years (move up housing) 10,051 29% 10,632 29% 6%
65+ years (retirement years) 2,455 7% 4,368 12% 78%
Total 34,421 100% 36,274 100% 5%
Race and Ethnicity
White 19,654 57% 19,650 54% 0%
Hispanic 10,813 31% 11,541 32% 7%
Asian 2,309 7% 2,849 8% 23%
Black 486 1% 574 2% 18%
All Others 1159 3% 1,660 5% 43%
Sources: 1. U.S. Census, 2010.
2. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018.
23
Household Characteristics
Household makeup also influences housing need. For instance, single-person households often occupy
smaller apartments or condominiums, such as one-bedroom units. Couples often prefer larger single-
family homes, particularly if they have children. As the baby boomer generation continues to age, there
has been an increased demand from empty nesters and retirees to downsize to more affordable units
that are easier to maintain. These patterns underscore the need for housing opportunities for people of
all ages and income levels. Table 4-3 shows the changes in household characteristics in Moorpark.
Although Moorpark is smaller than neighboring cities, it has seen significant changes in the composition
of households. In 2018, married family households with children made up 30% of Moorpark’s households,
a 7% decline from 2010, and the married households without children made up 40% of households, a
36% increase from 2010. Moorpark’s average household size in 2018 was 3.2, a slight, decrease from 2010
when the average household size was 3.3.
Moorpark’s slight reduction in average household size is largely the result of the increase in senior
households, the decline in the number of families with children, and the significant increase in single-
person households. Looking forward, the city can expect a continued, gradual decline in the average
household size due to demographic trends in Ventura County and Moorpark. The 2020 Census should
provide greater insight into continued changes in household characteristics.
Table 4-3 Household Characteristics in Moorpark, 2010-2018
20101 20182
Households Number of
Households Percent Number of
Households Percent Percent
Change
Household Type
Total Households 10,484 100% 11,282 100% 8%
Family Households 8,586 82% 9,260 82% 8%
Married with Children 3,656 35% 3,409 30% -7%
Married No Children 3,310 32% 4,493 40% 36%
All Other Families 1,620 15% 1,358 12% -16%
Nonfamily Households 1,898 18% 2,022 18% 7%
Household Size
1-person households 1,337 13% 1,605 14% 20%
2-4 person households 7,183 69% 8,027 71% 12%
5+ person households 1,964 19% 1,650 15% -16%
Average household size 3.28 — 3.22 — --
Sources: 1. U.S. Census, 2010.
2. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018.
24
Economic Characteristics
Moorpark’s job sector offers approximately 13,128 jobs, and 17,847 residents are employed (ratio of 0.74).
Due to the characteristics of the local employment sector (e.g., size, industries, and wages offered), most
residents commute to jobs in other communities. Fortunately, Moorpark’s transit line makes distance
commuting possible to cities throughout the greater Los Angeles and Ventura County regions. Moorpark
residents are highly employed; the City’s 3.8% unemployment rate in 2021 is significantly lower than the
5.3% unemployment rate countywide and is the second lowest after Fillmore.
Moorpark’s occupational profile includes a broad range of jobs and income levels, shown in Table 4-4.
For Moorpark residents, the primary occupational group—management, business, science, and arts
occupations—makes up 47% of all jobs. Full-time employees earn a median income of $90,823 annually.
The next largest category of occupations held by Moorpark residents is sales/office occupations, which
comprise 24% of all jobs. These moderate-income jobs have earnings from $36,216 to $52,784 annually,
depending on full-time status.
Generally, almost half of all employed residents are in services, production, and sales sectors, which offer
lower wages. Services comprise 14% of all occupations held by residents, and these occupations pay
between $23,571 (all jobs) and $31,620 for full-time work. Services comprise a broad range of jobs and
often pay lower incomes than other occupations. The last two categories—production/
transportation/material-moving occupations and natural resources/construction/maintenance—together
total about 14% of all jobs and have median earnings ranging from $25,979 and $50,302.
Table 4-4 Employment Characteristics in Moorpark, 2018
Jobs Held by Residents
Occupational Characteristics1 Number Percent Median Incomes
All Occupations Held by Residents
(within and outside of Moorpark) 19,209 100% All Jobs: $49,988
Full-time Jobs: $66,560
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations 9,121 47% All Jobs: $77,381
Full-time Jobs: $90,823
Service occupations 2,758 14% All Jobs: $23,571
Full-time Jobs: $31,620
Sales and office occupations 4,609 24% All Jobs: $36,216
Full-time Jobs: $52,784
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations 1,094 6% All Jobs: $44,435
Full-time Jobs: $50,302
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations 1,627 8% All Jobs: $25,979
Full-time Jobs: $38,209
Sources: 1. American Community Survey, 2014-2018.
2. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2017.
25
Household Income
Household income is a fundamental factor affecting one’s ability to afford housing in Moorpark, which is
generally more expensive than surrounding communities. Moorpark is an affluent city in Ventura County
as well as the state of California. The median household income for the city is approximately $104,500—
the second highest for any Ventura County city after Thousand Oaks. Moorpark also ranks in the top 5%
of all communities in California with respect to median household income. Moorpark’s household income
profile is summarized in Table 4-5 and described below.
Moorpark’s household income varies by tenure; the median income of owner-occupied households is
about $122,400—almost twice that of renter households ($63,800). Approximately 64% of owner
households earn more than $100,000 in annual income compared to only 24% of renters. Conversely,
12% of homeowners earn below $50,000 in income compared to 34% of renters. Moorpark’s household
income differences by tenure, coupled with housing prices and asking rents, have implications for housing
overpayment, overcrowding, and other housing problems.
The State of California groups income categories relative to the area (or county) median income (AMI)
These groups include very low-incomes (0 to 50% of AMI), low-income (50 to 80% of AMI), moderate-
income (81 to 120% of AMI), and above moderate-income (120%+ of AMI). Among homeowners, the
majority of households earn moderate or above moderate-incomes. Among renters, the distribution of
income among households is more uniform. The high percentage of very low-income renters is due to
the number of renters who are seniors and families residing in affordable housing.
Table 4-5 Household Income Characteristics
Household Income1
Tenure Total Households
(Percent) Owners Renter Total
Households by Income 8,580 2,702 11,282 100%
Less than $24,999 3% 11% 663 6%
$25,000 to 34,999 3% 8% 499 4%
$35,000 to 49,999 6% 15% 915 8%
$50,000 to 74,999 10% 22% 1,488 13%
$75,000 to 99,000 14% 16% 1,594 14%
$100,000 to 149,999 22% 14% 2,283 20%
$150,000 and more 42% 10% 3,840 34%
State Income Levels2
Very Low (< $56,450) 8% 32% 13% –
Low ($56,451-$90,350) 11% 19% 13% –
Moderate ($90,350-$117,350) 20% 24% 21% –
Above Moderate (Above $117,350) 62% 24% 53% –
Sources: 1. American Community Survey, 2014-2018.
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2014–2018.
26
Household Tenure
An optimal mix of homeownership and rental opportunities is important for communities because it
allows residents of all ages, incomes, and household sizes to choose the type of housing and location
best suited to their needs. Vacancy rates, in combination with housing tenure, are also important because
they affect the prices and rents for housing available in Moorpark. Household tenure is usually determined
by the types of housing built in a community coupled with household income levels.
Moorpark has a high rate of homeownership; 76% of homes are owner occupied versus 24% renter
occupied. This is the highest rate of owner occupancy in Ventura County, followed by Simi Valley and
Thousand Oaks. The median owner occupancy rate for all cities in Ventura County is an estimated 59 %,
much lower than Moorpark’s rate, whereas the median renter occupancy rate for all cities in Ventura
County is an estimated 41%, much higher than Moorpark’s rate. This is due in part to the prevalence of
single-family homes and the higher incomes of residents than in surrounding cities.
Housing vacancies are a measure of how well the supply of housing matches the demand for housing.
Typically, housing vacancy rates of 5 to 6% for apartments and 1 to 2% for homes are considered optimal.
This amount of housing vacancy ensures that consumers have sufficient choices for different types of
housing products, that prices are generally moderate, and that developers have a financial incentive to
build housing. While higher vacancy rates lead to price depreciation, lower vacancy rates indicate a tight
market and cause housing rents and prices to increase.
Table 4-6 shows the trend in housing occupancy and vacancy rates by household tenure in Moorpark. In
2018, the housing vacancy rate was 0.9% among owner-occupied housing units and 3.8% among renter-
occupied housing units. Anecdotal information indicates that vacancy rates have declined further over
the past few years, contributing to increasing housing rents and sales prices.
Table 4-6 Household Tenure and Vacancy, 2010-2018
2010 Composition1 2018 Composition2 Change 2010 to 2018
Housing Tenure # of Units % of Units # of Units % of Units # %
Total Housing Units 10,738 100% 11,796 100% 1,058 10%
Occupied Housing Units 10,484 98% 11,282 96% 798 8%
Owner Occupied 8,182 76% 8,580 73% 398 5%
Renter Occupied 2,302 21% 2,702 23% 400 17%
Vacant Housing Units 254 2% 514 4% 260 102%
Rental Vacancy Rate 2.9 3.8 —
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.0 0.9 —
Sources: 1. U.S. Census 2010.
2. American Community Survey, 2014-2018.
27
Moorpark has a variety of neighborhoods defined by topography (e.g., hillsides, canyons, and washes),
built infrastructure (e.g., major streets, highways, and railroads), and historical patterns of development.
Understanding these neighborhoods helps in prioritizing policies and programs to meet the unique needs
of each. Figure 4-1 on the following page illustrates the general location of residential neighborhoods.
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor/Downtown
The Los Angeles Avnue Corridor/Downtown occupies the center of Moorpark. It is generally bounded by
the Arroyo Simi to south, Poindexter and Charles Avenue to the north, and city limits to the west/east.
The northern most neighborhoods includes the High Street Corridor. High Street is the earliest developed
core where residents purchased goods, worked, dined, and enjoyed entertainment and culture. It includes
the adjacent Charles Street neighborhood, which consists of small-lot single-family homes and small
apartments. The southern subdistrict consists of a mix of multiple-family and single-family housing, with
big-box multitenant commercial centers along both sides of Los Angeles Avenue. This area includes all
eight apartment properties in the city along with condominium complexes.
Championship, Gabbert, and Hitch Ranch
This area covers three subdisticts in northwest Moorpark–Championship, Gabbert, and Hitch Ranch. The
Championship subdistrict is a highly amenitized community of multi-million dollar hilltop homes,
expansive golf course, and high level of amenities. Moving south down from the Championship is the
Gabbert subdistrict, which offers larger ranch lots, equestrian uses, and semi-rural natural environment.
The Hitch Ranch subdistrict extends south of Gabbert to the outer edges of Downtown. Most of the
residential projects approved or pending development are located within this subdistrict. Hitch Ranch will
include a highly diversified mix of single-family and attached multiple-family housing.
Mountain Meadows
The Mountain Meadows neighborhood takes its name from a 2,500-unit development that was approved
by the county in the 1980s. It is bordered by Arroyo Simi on the north and by the utility lines’ public right-
of-way on the east, then Tierra Rejada Road to the north, and the city boundaries to the south and west.
Mountain Meadows consists of master-planned, single-family-detached residential neighborhoods,
which have been built in phases and include a number of smaller phases with homeowner associatio ns.
This neighborhood is distinguished by curvilinear streets, parks and open spaces, and local schools.
Single-family homes sell for an average of $850,000 or more; attached condos/townhomes sell for above
$500,000. In the westernmost area near the city’s edge, housing prices exceed an average of $1 million.
Carlsberg Specific Plan / Peach Hill
The Carlsberg Specific Plan and Peach Hill neighborhoods are bounded by Arroyo Simi and New Los
Angeles Avenue to the north, Ronald Reagan Freeway to the east, and Tierra Rejada Road to the south.
The Peach Hill neighborhood lies to the west, the Carlsberg neighborhood is on the east. These
28
neighborhoods largely consist of master-planned, single-family-detached residential neighborhoods.
with some of the newer neighborhoods having controlled gated access. To the east of the public utility
right-of-way, the Carlsberg Specific Plan includes a mix of single-family-detached homes, commercial
centers, schools, and parks. Homes have multiple amenities and sell for an average price of $1 million. To
the west, Peach Hill is a master-planned area of residences, parks, schools, and other uses. Housing is
more moderately priced, averaging approximately $750,000 over the past several years.
Moorpark Highlands
This general area is bounded by Amtrak/Metrolink railroad lines and Poindexter Lane to the south, and
includes neighborhoods on Spring Road to the east, and the city limits to the north and west. This area
is characterized by intensely sloped hills and limited development but does include single-family-
detached residential neighborhoods. The area has two primary neighborhoods. Moorpark Highlands
encompasses the residential neighborhoods, parks, and schools along Spring Road that are within the
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan. Prices average around $900,000. The Walnut Canyon neighborhood
runs along Walnut Canyon Road to the city limits to the north and west. This area captures neighborhoods
accessed by Walnut Canyon Road that are along Championship Drive and Grimes Canyon Road. This
neighborhood surrounds the Moorpark Country Club, and homes sell for an average price of $1.6 million.
College Neighborhood
This neighborhood surrounds Moorpark College and is bounded by State Route 118 to the south,
neighborhoods along College Heights Drive to the west, and the city boundaries to the north and east.
Census tracts in this area overlap several developments to the south, such as Villa del Arroyo and Virginia
Colony, but the latter areas are separated by the SR-118 and topography from the College neighborhood.
In the College neighborhood, residential uses feature a mix of single-family homes, but offers more
variety, including older small-lot neighborhoods, multifamily condominium / townhome complexes, and
newer traditional single-family subdivisions. Moorpark College occupies the northeast edge of the city.
Its location, topography, and freeways largely isolate it from the rest of Moorpark and its neighborhoods.
Housing prices average $675,000 for single-family homes, and $450,000 for condos and townhomes.
Virginia Colony
Virginia Colony is south and east of the SR-118/23 curve and Arroyo Simi to the south and east. In many
respects, Virginia Colony is physically isolated from the remainder of Moorpark, cut off by the freeway
and only accessed by Princeton Avenue. Virginia Colony is one of the city’s earliest developments, with
50 single-family homes and a neighborhood park. The neighborhood has a largely Hispanic population
and its physical development dates back to the City’s agricultural days prior to incorporation.
Approximately two-thirds of the area north of the Colony is developed with two large industrial parks
with large-footprint, concrete, tilt-up buildings; surface parking lots; and extensive landscaping. The
Colony also contains the Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Estates, located just south of the SR-118.
29
Figure 4-1 Moorpark Neighborhood Areas
30
This page intentionally left blank.
31
This section describes housing characteristics to
provide a basis for assessing the match between the
demand and supply of available housing. These
include housing growth trends, housing
characteristics, age and condition, housing prices and
rents, homeownership, and affordable housing.
Housing Growth
Moorpark’s housing stock increased considerably
between 2000 and 2020, by about 29%. Of the
approximately 2,600-unit increase in housing built
during the past twenty years, 20% was due to the
development of the Waterstone, Vintage Crest,
Charles Street, and Walnut Avenue Apartments. This
increase was significantly higher than most cities in
the county. In the four surrounding cities, Camarillo’s housing stock increased the most after Moorpark
in the percentage of units built (27%), followed by Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Santa Paula.
Looking forward, the City of Moorpark expects continued residential development. According to its 2021-
2029 RHNA, the City of Moorpark is expected to increase its housing stock the greatest percentage, at
11% by 2030. Based on the 2021-2029 RHNA goals, the cities of Santa Paula and Simi Valley are expected
to increase the next fastest, at 7% and 6%, respectively. Thousand Oaks and Camarillo are expected to
increase 5% in the number of units by 2030, although their 2021-2029 RHNA is larger than the other
neighboring cities. Table 4-7 shows the historical growth of housing and projected growth based on the
2021-2029 RHNA.
Table 4-7 Housing Estimates, 2000-2030
Housing Estimates Percent Change
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 2030* 2000-2020 2020-2029
Moorpark 9,094 10,738 11,756 13,044 29% 11%
Simi Valley 37,272 42,506 43,927 46,720 18% 6%
Thousand Oaks 42,958 47,497 48,131 50,752 12% 5%
Camarillo 21,946 25,702 27,828 29,204 27% 5%
Santa Paula 8,341 8,749 9,187 9,844 10% 7%
Sources: Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2021-2029 RHNA
* Year 2030 is referenced since it is based on housing projections from January 2021- October 2029.
Charles Street Affordable Housing
32
Housing Composition
Single-Family Residential
Moorpark consists primarily of single-family homes,
which account for 73% of the housing stock. Moorpark
is tied with Fillmore for the highest share of single-
family detached housing of cities in Ventura County—
and well above the countywide average (61%). This is
largely the result of how the city was developed with
single-family residential subdivisions throughout much
of Moorpark’s history, including a period of rapid
suburbanization following its incorporation.
Attached and Multiple-family, 2-4 units
As shown in Figure 4-2, only 2% of the City’s housing
stock is duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.
Condominums comprise and additional 7% and
townhomes another 6%. Moorpark has five townhome
and six condominium developments, which total about
1,500 units. These products are more moderately
priced and are clustered around Moorpark College, Los
Angeles Avenue, and in selected larger developments.
Apartments
Moorpark has eight apartment properties providing 1,132 housing units or 10% of the city’s stock. Four
projects are deed restricted and provide 100% affordable housing to lower income residents. Two of the
affordable housing properties are age restricted to seniors, and both are disabled friendly. The other four
apartment properties are market rate developments, two of which are Class A (high level of amenities)
and two which are Class B/C (generally investment grade, older, less amenity-rich). Of the market rate
developments, a smaller percent are deed restricted as affordable. Taken together, 25% to 30% of the
city’s apartment stock is deed restricted as affordable to lower income households.
Mobile Homes and Other Units
Mobile homes and accessory dwelling units (ADU) make up the remaining 2% of all housing units. The
city has one mobile home park—Villa de Arroyo mobile home park—south of SR-118 in northeastern
Moorpark. This project provides 240 units of affordable housing for residents. ADUs, a newer form of
housing, provide an additional unknown numbr of housing units in the city. With changes in state law, it
is anticipated that the number of ADUs will increase as part of new and existing housing developments.
These are not included in the above figure as the number of units is very limited to date.
73%
2%
10%
6%
7%2%
Single Family 2 to 4-plexes
Apartments Townhome
Condominium Mobile Homes
Figure 4-2 Housing Type in Moorpark
33
Housing Age and Condition
Moorpark takes great pride in its neighborhoods, quality
housing, and overall desirability of the community.
According to a recent National Community Survey
(2021),1 more than 9 of 10 survey respondents reported
Moorpark as a good or excellent place to live, and nearly
8 in 10 respondents rated their neighborhood as good
or excellent places to live. The quality of housing,
availability and condition of amenities, and safety of
neighborhoods all help to create great places to live and
therefore are priorities for the City.
Most of the city’s housing was built after 1980 and is
generally in good condition. However, homes begin to
show some wear and tear after 30 years and require
improvements such as roof repair, painting, landscaping,
and exterior finishes. Homes between 30 and 50 years typically require more significant maintenance and
even renovation. Generally, homes built 50 or more years ago (unless well-maintained) are more likely to
require substantial repairs or need renovation to meet current building codes. Apartments and multiple-
family residences may require more frequent maintenance and repair given the higher intensity use. Table
4-8 summarizes Moorpark’s housing stock by the decade when the structure was built.
Table 4-8 Housing Built by Decade
Housing Characteristics
Decade Built Number of Units Percent of Units
Built 2010 or later (≤10 years old) 332 3%
Built 2000 to 2009 (11 to 20 years old) 1,878 16%
Built 1990 to 1999 (21 to 30 years old) 1,522 13%
Built 1980 to 1989 (31 to 40 years old) 5,559 47%
Built 1970 to 1979 (41 to 50 years old) 1,325 11%
Built 1960 to 1969 (51 to 60 years old) 323 3%
Built 1950 to 1959 (61 to 70 years old) 584 5%
Built before 1950 (≥ 71 years old) 273 2%
Total Units Sampled 11,796 100%
Sources: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018
Note: Sample counts are not consistent with Department of Finance estimates as of 2020.
1 Moorpark, CA; Community Livability Report 2020, National Community Survey, ICMA
Standard single-family home
34
Housing Conditions
Moorpark is generally recognized as having high quality of life, and the majority of homes are still in good
structural condition. However, Moorpark has smaller, “pocket” areas that have needs—some
infrastructure-related, some housing condition-related, and some related to property maintenance. Areas
requiring special attention include the following.
• Virginia Colony. Virginia Colony is south of the
SR-118/SR-23 intersection. Approximately two-
thirds of land uses are industrial; however, the
southwest portion between Princeton and the
railroad tracks is home to one of the city’s earliest
developments, the Virginia Colony. This area
consists of about 50 older homes along narrow
streets adjacent to the railroad tracks. Homes in
this area and require rehabilitation. The area has
poor connectivity to the downtown and also
needs infrastructure repairs to improve circulation.
• Villa Campesina. The Villa Campesina tract
consists of 62 single-family homes surrounded by
Leta Yancy Road, Unidos Avenue, Juarez Avenue,
James Weak Avenue, and Villa Campesina Avenue.
This project was originally a sweat-equity project
for farmworkers and was built by People’s Self-
Help Housing. Though still in good condition, the
tract is aging and could benefit from housing
repair and roadway maintenance.
• Downtown Moorpark. Downtown Moorpark is
also one of the original neighborhoods, with
portions of it dating back to the early 1900s.
Today, the neighborhood is a mix of older single-
family homes interspersed with apartments. This
area has the greater overcrowding in the city, and
some homes could benefit from maintenance and
repair. The neighborhood has the highest
concentration of Spanish-speaking households.
The Housing Plan contains a program to explore
options for targeted assistance to areas most in need of housing maintenance and improvement.
Virginia Colony
Downtown Area
35
Housing Prices
Moorpark experienced significant escalation
in housing prices over the decade.
According to Redfin, the median price of
single-family homes increased 57%,
townhomes by 75%, and condominiums by
125%. Due primarily to limited housing
construction over the decade, housing
prices soared in 2021 to all-time highs.
Single-family homes are the primary
housing type in Moorpark. As of 2020,
citywide, a single-family home sold for a
median price of $781,000. Home prices
varied from $500,000 for a two-bedroom
unit to more than $1.1 million for a larger, 5-
bedroom home (source: Redfin.com).
Hillside homes sold for higher prices.
Townhomes and condominiums, which make up about 20% of the city’s housing stock, provide housing
for middle/moderate-income residents. In 2020, the median sales price was approximately $485,000 for
townhomes and approximately $432,000 for condominiums according to Redfin. Sales price for
townhomes were similar to condominiums, though townhomes were more expensive—most likely since
they are more similar to single-family homes in terms of privacy, space, lot size, and yard. Mobile homes
were the most affordable units, with a median sales price of $193,500 according to Redfin. Table 4-9
displays the median sales price for housing in Moorpark as of calendar year 2020.
Table 4-9 Housing Sales Prices in Moorpark
Median Prices by Unit Size
Housing Type Median
Price
2 bed
unit
3 bed
unit
4 bed
unit
5+ bed
unit
Single-family $781,000 $506,000 $637,000 $795,000 $1,100,000
Condominiums $432,000 $395,000 $437,000 ---- ----
Townhome $485,000 $467,000 $463,000 ---- ----
Mobile homes $193,000 $200,000 $207,000 ---- ----
Source: Redfin.com, 2020.
Note: Median sales prices calculated from survey of homes sold during the full calendar year 2020.
Figure 4-3 Housing Prices in Moorpark, 2012-20
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
$700K
$800K
$900K
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Condo
Townhome
Single-Family
Source: Redfin, 2012–2020
36
Housing Rents
Moorpark has eight apartment complexes—
four market rate and four deed restricted as
affordable. Based on a survey of market rate
apartment units, rents increased by more than
25% between 2015 and 2019, faster than
changes in median household income. The
percentage of increase was nearly identical
regardless of the size of the apartment unit,
except that three-bedroom units, the most
limited in number, recorded the greatest
change over the past five years.
As of 2020, the average apartment rent is
$2,170. The average rent ranges from a low of
$1,951 for a 1-bedroom unit to a high of
$2,659 for a 3-bedroom unit, the higher price
due to the difference in square footage and
fewer number of large apartments in the city.
Single-family homes offering two to four bedrooms (including condominiums and townhomes) typically
rent in the range of $2,500 to $3,500 per month in Moorpark, depending on the number of bedrooms
and amenities. In addition to conventional units, ADUs, both regular and junior, are an increasingly
popular rental option. These units vary in rent depending on the size. Homeowners increasingly seek
permits to develop such units on their property. While ADUs are most often reserved for family members,
the median rent when charged is $1,500 (see Table 4-10).
Table 4-10 Housing Rents in Moorpark
Rent Characteristics
Unit by Bedroom Survey Rent/Sq. foot Low High Average
Apartments
Studio 2 units $2.07 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240
1 - bedroom 186 units $2.82 $1,430 $2,007 $1,951
2 - bedroom 560 units $2.42 $1,675 $2,330 $2,182
3 - bedroom 120 units $2.34 $2,210 $2,659 $2,600
Accessory Dwellings -- 790 2,075 $1,500
Source: City Survey; Dyer Sheeran Group, July 2019 Ventura County Apartment Market Survey.
Note: As discussed in the section on regional housing needs, the vast majority of ADUs are provided to family members free of rent. Where rents are
charged, the median rent charged was $1,500 based on a three-month survey in Moorpark.
Figure 4-4 Moorpark Apartment Rents, 2015-20
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Jan-15
Jul 19
37
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability refers to how much a household can afford to pay for an apartment, townhome, or
single-family home. Typically, housing affordability is defined as the ratio of housing expenses to income,
referred to as a “cost burden.” The housing industry typically assumes that the “affordable” payment for
a homeowner should range from 30 to 40% of gross monthly income, with the latter figure being used
in the California Association of Realtors’ first-time homebuyers’ index. For renters, the appropriate cost
burden varies from 30 to 40%, with the latter being used under the federal housing choice voucher
program. This Housing Element uses a midpoint of 35% cost burden for ownership (as many expenses
are tax deductible) and 30% for renters as the threshold for housing overpayment.
Table 4-11 shows the amount that households of different incomes can afford for a home in Moorpark,
and the following description compares housing affordability for different incomes and housing types.
Table 4-11 Affordability of Housing
Household and Unit Size
Income Category 1-Person
(Studio)
2-Person
(1 bdrm)
3-Person
2-bdrm)
4-person
(3-bdrm)
5-person
4-Bdrm)
Income Limits1
Extremely Low $23,700 $27,100 $30,500 $33,850 $36,600
Very Low $39,550 $45,200 $50,850 $56,450 $61,000
Low $63,250 $72,300 $81,350 $90,350 $97,600
Moderate $82,150 $93,900 $105,600 $117,350 $126,750
Maximum Affordable Price2
Extremely Low $36,000 $53,000 $69,000 $85,000 $99,000
Very Low $113,500 $133,000 $145,000 $169,000 $188,000
Low $198,000 $218,000 $253,000 $289,000 $317,000
Moderate $257,000 $302,000 $348,000 $394,000 $402,000
Maximum Affordable Rent3
Extremely Low $507 $581 $641 $700 $743
Very Low $903 $1,033 $1,149 $1,265 $1,353
Low $1,495 $1,711 $1,912 $2,113 $2,268
Moderate $1,968 $2,251 $2,518 $2,788 $2,997
Source: PlaceWorks, 2020.
1. 2020 HCD Income Limits for Ventura County based on surveys by the U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development.
2. Assumes 30-year fixed mortgage, $25,000 down payment, 4% interest rate, 1.2% property tax, 1% property insurance, and maximum payment of
36% debt-income ratio toward housing. Sales prices calculated using Freddi eMac.
3. Monthly affordable apartment rent based on monthly payments of less than 30% of gross household income and monthly utility allowance
determined by the Area Housing Authority of Ventura County.
38
Housing Affordability by Income Level
The following summarizes the affordability of rental and
ownership housing based on Table 4-11. This analysis will
be used later to determine how the City can meet its
RHNA requirement.
Extremely Low (affordable to 0 to 30% AMI)
Extremely low-income, four-person households can afford
a home priced $85,000, depending on household size. No
market rate housing units of any type or size in Moorpark
are affordable to extremely low-income households. This
is also true for apartment rentals, as extremely low-income
households can afford a monthly rent of about $500 to
$750—contingent on household size—which is below the
market rate rents charged in Moorpark.
Very Low-Income (affordable to 31 to 50% AMI)
Very low-income, four-person households can afford a home priced up to $169,000, depending on
household size. Given these limitations, there are no for-sale, market rate housing units of any type or
size that would be affordable to very low-income households. Neither are there any adequately sized
apartment units that would be affordable to these households, since very low-income households can
afford a monthly rent of about $900 to $1,350, depending on household size. This is below most of the
market rate rents being charged in Moorpark.
Low-Income (Affordable to 51 to 80% AMI)
Low-income, four-person households can afford a for-sale home priced up to $289,000, depending on
household size. Given these limitations, there are no for-sale, market rate housing units of any type or
size in Moorpark that would be affordable to low-income households. Low-income renters can afford
$1,500 to $2,268 per unit in rent, which is generally around the average rent charged for a two-bedroom
unit. ADUs and junior ADUs are often affordable to lower income individuals. Separate, larger guest
houses may also be affordable to low and moderate-income households.
Moderate-income (Affordable to 81 to 120% of AMI)
Moderate-income households can afford a home up to $394,000 and rent up from $2,000 to $3,000. The
only for-sale market rate housing units in Moorpark affordable to moderate-income households would
be 2- to 4-bedroom mobile homes for households consisting of 3 to 5 persons. All other for-sale market
rate housing is unaffordable to moderate-income households. Townhomes and condominiums, which
historically provided affordable ownership housing, are no longer affordable to moderate-incomes.
Larger guest houses of 1,000 square feet and larger are also affordable to moderate-income households.
However, a moderate-income household should be able to afford any apartment in Moorpark.
Quail Ridge development in Moorpark
39
Housing Problems
According to the federal government, housing problems refer to the prevalence of overpayment,
overcrowding, and substandard housing in a community. Housing overpayment refers to paying too
much for housing relative to one’s income, and overcrowding refers to situations where residents are
living in crowded housing. Substandard housing refers to housing that does not meet habitability
standards. These situations are disproportionately concentrated among lower income and special needs
households. As summarized below and in Table 4-12, housing problems in Moorpark include:
• Overcrowding. Overcrowding can be moderate or severe. Moderate overcrowding is defined as 1 to
1.5 persons per room, and severe overcrowding is anything higher. In 2018, 2% of homeowners and
6% of renters in Moorpark lived in overcrowded situations. Countywide, 3% of owners and 12% of renters
live in overcrowded housing. While overcrowding rates are low citywide, approximately 25% of housing
units in the downtown area are overcrowded.
• Overpayment. Overpayment can be either moderate or severe. Moderate overpayment refers to
paying 30 to 49% of income toward housing, and severe overpayment is paying more than 50% of
income. In Moorpark, 30% of owners and 65% of renters overpay for housing. Countywide, 32% of
owners and 55% of renters overpay for housing. However, more than half of all the households in the
downtown Moorpark area overpay for housing.
• Substandard housing. Substandard housing has been traditionally defined as units lacking complete
kitchens, bathrooms, or heat. According to the ACS, less than 10 units have been surveyed as having
incomplete kitchens or plumbing, and 344 units lack heating fuel. However, because many ADUs could
be included, these statistics could be misleading. The City estimates are that up to 100 homes would
be considered in need of rehabilitation beyond just normal investments typical for homes.
Table 4-12 Housing Overpayment and Overcrowding
Overpayment Overcrowding
Severity of
Housing Problems
Renter
Households
Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Owner
Households
None 888 6,001 2,536 8,407
Moderate 951 1,731 80 166
Severe 683 848 86 7
Total 2,522 8,580 2,702 8,580
Percent Amount
None 35% 70% 94% 98%
Moderate 38% 20% 3% 2%
Severe 27% 10% 3% 0%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014-2018.
40
Special needs are those associated with specific demographic or occupational groups that call for specific
housing program responses. State law specifically requires analysis of the special housing needs of people
who are elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), female-headed households, large
families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness. These special-needs groups often spend
a disproportionate amount of their income to secure safe and decent housing and are sometimes subject
to discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances.
This section contains a discussion of the housing needs of special needs groups, as defined in state law,
who reside in Moorpark. The analysis of each special-needs group includes:
• A quantification of the total number of persons and households in the special housing needs group,
including tenure (rental or ownership) where possible.
• A quantification and qualitative description of the need (including a description of the potential
housing problems faced by the special needs groups).
• A general description of any existing resources or programs, and an assessment of unmet needs for
each of these special need groups.
Following this analysis, the constraints analysis and program sections of the Housing Element identify
potential program or policy options and resources to address unmet housing and service needs.
Table 4-13 summarizes the prevalence of each group in Moorpark.
Table 4-13 Special Housing Needs Groups in Moorpark
Prevalence
Special Needs Group
Number of People
or households
Percent of Population
or Households
Senior citizens 4,368 people 12%
People with disabilities 3,493 people 10%
Large families 1,650 households 15%
Single-parent families 457 households 4%
College students 13,569 people --
People who are homeless 12 people <1%
Agricultural Workers <100 people <1%
Sources: 1. City of Moorpark, 2020.
2. Ventura County PiTC Census, 2020.
3. Moorpark College, ACS 2014-2018.
41
Senior Citizens
Seniors are typically defined as persons 65 years or older, although for housing purposes the age may be
as low as 55 years. Moorpark has an estimated 4,368 seniors in 2,393 senior households (ACS, 2014-2018).
Among this population, most of Moorpark’s senior households (2,053 or 86%) own their own homes, and
340 senior households (14%) rent housing. Reflecting the increasing health and longevity of seniors, 10%
of senior households are headed by a member who is 85 years or older.
Overall, some of the more pressing issues that Moorpark seniors may have living in their homes are:
• Disabilities. Seniors tend to have a higher prevalence than other age groups of disabilities that can
make it increasingly difficult to go outside or take care of personal needs. This underscores a need for
housing that is accessible to those with disabilities.
• Income Limitations. Seniors tend to have lower and fixed incomes due to retirement. This makes
seniors, especially renters, more susceptible to increases in rental housing costs and housing
overpayment, which leaves less disposal income for other expenses.
• Overpayment. Senior renters have the highest rates of overpayment due to their limited retirement
income. Compared to senior homeowners without a mortgage, overpayment is especially prevalent
for senior renters, who are subject to annual rent increases despite fixed incomes.
Many Moorpark seniors reside in conventional single-family homes. However, providing appropriate
housing designed for seniors has become increasingly important. As this group approaches retirement
or senior years, many may seek different types of senior housing, from smaller condominiums to
independent or assisted age-restricted housing. In addition to housing, an appropriate mix of affordable
support services (e.g., transportation, health care, home maintenance) provided locally can help seniors
live as independently as possible. Housing options available for seniors include:
• Age-restricted apartments. Moorpark has two senior housing projects, with a combined total of 219
units, restricted for those aged 55 and above. Vintage Crest Apartments is a privately managed senior
housing complex with 189 age-restricted units for lower-income households that was funded by Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits. Tafoya Terrace Apartments features 30 units for lower-income seniors.
• Retirement facilities. These facilities provide a variety of living arrangements, from independent living
to more supportive settings. Moorpark has one facility operated by Enduring Oaks Assisted Living with
capacity for six residents. In 2019, the City approved Oakmont, a 77-unit (84-bed) assisted living and
memory care facility. The City also recently approved the 390-unit Aldersgate senior project.
• In-home supportive services. Moorpark is home to two in-home care organizations that serve a
combined total of 13 patients in the city. Home Instead Senior Care provides in-home personal, home
help, and hospice services for 4 senior patients in Moorpark. Access TLC Caregivers provides in-home
healthcare, transportation, and hospice services for 9 senior patients in Moorpark.
42
Family Households
Providing decent and affordable housing for families is an important policy goal for Moorpark. Housing
Element law identifies three types of families as having special needs—large families, female-headed
families, and single-parent households with children—and requires proactive programs. The reasons for
their special need status differ, but generally includes lower incomes, the presence of children and
additional associated costs, and the lack of adequately sized rental and ownership housing.
Large families with five or more persons have special housing needs due to a lower per capita income,
the need for affordable childcare, or the need for affordable larger units. Moorpark has an estimated
1,650 large family households, out of which 1,258 families (76%) own a home and 392 families (24%) rent
housing. Single-parent households also have special needs due to their limited incomes and higher
expenses. Moorpark has 457 single-parent families with children, out of which 147 are male-headed
households and 310 are female-headed households. Lower income single parents, particularly renters,
generally experience the highest prevalence and severity of overpayment and overcrowding.
Providing housing opportunities for families in Moorpark is a challenging task. Moorpark has housing
stock to help address the housing needs of special needs families:
• Large Units. Of Moorpark’s total 11,796 housing units, 45% have four or more bedrooms (ACS 2014-
2018). Based on the City’s affordable housing list, 46 four-bedroom attached units and about 50
additional apartments provide units suitable for large families.
• Public Housing. The Area Housing Authority of Ventura County (AHACV) accepts applications for 4-
bedroom public housing units for income-qualified families with 4 members earning an income of up
to $79,900. In Moorpark, 121 heads of household receive housing choice vouchers from the AHACV.
• Affordable Apartments. In Moorpark, two low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects (Charles
Street and Walnut Apartments) are intended for low-income families. Together, these apartments
provide 42 units of affordable housing to extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
Families with children have additional expenses related to health care, food, and other living expenses. In
2012, the City built the Ruben Castro Human Services Center (RCHSC), a 25,000-square-foot multiservice
location for people and families needing assistance. Local nonprofits, including Catholic Charities,
Interface, and the Ventura County Human Services Agency, all have offices and operate from this location.
The RCHSC also houses the county ‘s family medical clinic.
Many working parents place their children in childcare while they work. The city has 14 licensed childcare
centers and large family day care homes that serve more than 700 children. However, the cost of childcare
for an infant or preschooler can range from $10,000 to $16,000 annually per child, far beyond what most
families can afford (Kidsdata.org, 2018). This is particularly difficult for single working parents, who have
limited options for a spouse or significant other to care for their children.
43
Persons With Disabilities
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities are impairments that substantially limit life activities
and make it difficult to care for oneself. Because of that, persons living with disabilities have special needs
for accessible housing. These conditions can also impede a person from being able to leave the home
alone or to work at a job. In Moorpark, 9.6% (3,493 residents) live with a disability. The number of persons
living with disabilities is anticipated to increase with the aging of Moorpark’s residents.
Based on census data and California Department of Development Services, Moorpark residents have the
following disabilities (many have multiple disabilities):
• Hearing Disability. Deafness or serious difficulty hearing—1,176 people
• Vision. Blind or having serious difficulty seeing—525 people
• Independent Living. Difficulty doing errands alone—1,106 people
• Cognitive disability. Impaired learning, memory, concentrating—1,508 people
• Self-care disability. Restricted ability to care for oneself—699 people
• Ambulatory. Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs—1,372 people
• Developmental. An array of developmental disabilities—323 residents
Many disabled people live in independent housing. However, ensuring that housing is designed and
accessible to people with a disability is difficult. The majority of single-family homes are inaccessible to
people with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing units may need to have wider doorways and
hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms with grab bars, lowered countertops, and other features
common to “barrier-free” housing. Location is also important for disabled people, because they often rely
on public transit to travel to services, like grocers or medical offices.
In some cases, more severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision
and assistance with activities of daily living are provided. These include facilities that provide 24-hour
nonmedical care for residents who are physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and/or
mentally disabled. Moorpark has two such facilities. An anticipated 77 housing units for seniors with age-
related memory disabilities will be coming online. Outside of the city, the Tri Counties Regional Center
provides advocacy for and assistance to developmentally disabled people in Moorpark.
For Moorpark disabled residents, a comprehensive approach is required to live within the community.
This approach includes, among others: 1) a continuum of accessible and affordable housing options; 2) a
mix of appropriate services within the city; 3) a responsive transit system that allows people to
conveniently access services; 4) equal access to city services, programs, and facilities; and 5) a
discrimination-free environment. The Housing Plan provides both policy and programmatic guidance for
addressing the needs of Moorpark residents of all abilities.
44
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness is a pressing issue for many communities, and the varied dimensions of homelessness have
significant implications for the type and extent of housing and services provided. The 2020 Ventura
County Continuum of Care Alliance point-in-time count (PiTC) identified 1,743 persons living on the
streets or in housing facilities that serve homeless persons in the county. This is an approximately 50%
increase in homeless people counted than the 1,142 count in 2017. In Moorpark, however, there were no
persons counted as experiencing homelessness in 2020, according to the PiTC.
Other data sources point to a larger estimate of people who are either homeless or precariously housed.
The State of California maintains data on students considered homeless. Approximately 5 to 15 students
in Moorpark schools over the past several years were reported as living in 1) shared housing, 2) a hotel
or motel, 3) a temporary shelter, or 4) unsheltered. Moorpark College staff indicate that up to 49% of
college students are precariously housed at some point during the college year. Ventura County reported
43 households at risk of homelessness and 27 literally homeless households in Moorpark. These statistics
suggest that homelessness or precarious housing situations are more prevalent.
Homelessness has regional and local dimensions. On the regional level, the County of Ventura serves as
the lead agency for the County Continuum of Care (CoC), which includes public agencies, social service
providers, nonprofit organizations, city leadership, and other regional stakeholders who work together
across the county to end homelessness in Ventura County. The County CoC has developed a coordinated
entry system, called Pathways to Home, to coordinate services provided to homeless individuals, reduce
duplication of effort, and identify the most effective and efficient services to move homeless individuals
out of a state of homelessness as quickly possible.
The City has signed an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pledging to participate in countywide
efforts to address homelessness. This includes requiring local service providers to sign onto the MOU
with the CoC; developing a crisis response system for those who present as homeless in the city; pursuing
permanent housing across the continuum of care of housing needs (including transitional, permanent
supportive, and extremely affordable) in their Housing Elements; 4) requiring that all entities that receive
funding for homeless or housing services from their city/county commit to the Pathways to Home
program; and 5) committing to consult with the CoC as the city/county considers recommendations for
programs and funding related to homelessness.
Locally, services for homeless people are coordinated from the Ruben Castro Center, which includes the
county-affiliated Moorpark Family Medical Clinic and the County Human Services Agency (HSA). The HSA
operates the Homeless Services Program, which connects people to a network of agencies that provide
health care, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, temporary housing, and other benefits.
HSA also operates a Rapid Rehousing program to get homeless people into housing as soon as possible.
The Center also houses Catholic Charities, Interface Children Family Services, and First 5 Neighborhoods
for Learning—all of which provide direct or referral services to individuals who are homeless or
precariously housed. The Center also provides a food pantry operation at Moorpark College.
45
College Faculty, Staff, and Students
Moorpark is one of 116 cities in California with a community
college. Founded in 1967, Moorpark College has long been a
community asset, predating the city’s incorporation in 1983.
The college enrolls approximately 14,000 students and
employs more than 600 faculty, administrative, and support
staff. Many residents in Moorpark or family members have
attended the college at some point, and the institution is a
source of local pride. College students and faculty are not
among the “mandated” special-needs groups cited under
state Housing Element law. However, the number of
Moorpark students, faculty, and staff and their contribution
to the local economy and community underscore the
importance of addressing the housing needs of this group.
Moorpark College students range in age, with 76% of students below 24 years of age, and 87% below 30
years old. Students are a special needs group since they are often underemployed and might not
command enough income to afford tuition, housing, and other expenses. College faculty are often
adjunct, or part-time, which pays much less than full-time, tenure-track faculty, who earn between
$65,000 and $80,000 annually. The median price of single-family homes, at $825,000, and median
apartment rents, at 2,000+ per month, are unaffordable. Indeed, student surveys estimate that up to 50%
of students may be precariously housed at any given time during the academic year.
As is the case with most community colleges, Moorpark College does not provide on-campus dormitories
or housing for students or employees. Because of the limited supply and high cost of suitable housing in
the community, Moorpark College is a commuter school. The three largest cities where students live are
Simi Valley (26%), Thousand Oaks (13%), and Moorpark (9%). The remainder come from other Ventura
County cities. With the Simi Valley and Moorpark student populations combined, 35% of all students live
close to campus, and 65% commute in. For Moorpark College’s estimated 600 employees, the vast
majority commute into Moorpark from other cities. The Housing Element can provide proactive policy
and program guidance to address this unmet need.
Looking forward, Moorpark College will be studying the demand for housing that can accommodate
students, faculty, and/or staff attending or employed at Moorpark College. Should the market demand
study yield a favorable result, additional measures will be undertaken to partner with organizations to
determine feasible options for expanding housing in the community to meet local needs. Ruben Castro
Center also operates a food pantry in the immediate vicinity of the college campus. The Housing Plan
provides policy guidance and a program to work with the college to facilitate the development of suitable
housing that is affordable to students, faculty, and others employed at or attending the college.
Moorpark College campus
46
Agricultural Employees
Unlike most areas of the Southern California region,
agriculture is still a sizable component of the economy in
Ventura County. According to the 2017 Agricultural Census,
the entire county has an estimated 1,151 farms of
approximately 260,000 acres. Farm operators reported a total
22,624 hired farm workers countywide, with more than half
working less than 150 days per year. With respect to migrant
farmworkers, there was a total estimate of 3,595 migrant
workers in Ventura County, totaling about 14% of the
farmworker labor force.
Moorpark has only 400 acres of land designated for
agriculture; 2% of the city’s existing land is used for cropland,
pasture, orchards and vineyards, nurseries, and ranches.
However, Moorpark is surrounded by agricultural land. Tierra Rejada, Apricot Lane, Underwood Family
Farms, IronGate Ranch, Sierra Pacific, Water Ranches, Leavens Fairview Ranch, and various agricultural
operations in the Santa Rosa Valley are a few of the agricultural operations within/adjacent to Moorpark.
Major crops include apricots, avocados, berries, lemons, and other vegetables and fruits. The region is
also known for a sizable number of small, sustainable, and organic farming operations.
Agricultural employment is diverse, ranging from individuals working at corporate offices to those
working in processing/manufacturing operations to field laborers. In addition, the nature of agricultural
crops plays an important role in the need for agricultural workers. The 2014-2018 ACS reports that 301
residents are employed in agriculture, forestry, farming, and mining inside or outside of the city. There is
no authoritative census of agricultural workers nor whether they are permanent, seasonal, or migrant.
Though there are more than 1,000 students in the county eligible for migrant education countywide, no
children attending Moorpark schools are currently eligible for this program.
Farmworker housing is limited countywide, in part due to the lack of a reliable farmworker census. The
City provides opportunities for caretaker and farm worker dwellings, though it is unclear if any exist today.
The City worked with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation to finance and develop the 62-unit
Villa Campesina project for farmworkers, many of whom worked at “Egg City” before it closed.
Farmworker housing is under construction in Somis, an unincorporated area five miles east of Moorpark,
which will add 360 new units and serve as the largest single farmworker project in Ventura County.
The Housing Plan contains an affirmative program to update municipal codes to permit employee and
agricultural housing in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code §§17021.5 and 17021.6.
Code amendments will be made to reduce barriers to and facilitate farmworker housing. The Housing
Plan also proposes to cooperate with nonprofit organizations to fund a farmworker study and to explore
opportunities for farmworker housing, countywide and locally.
Underwood Family Farms, south of Moorpark
Underwood Farms
47
Lower Income Households
Nearly one of every four households living in Moorpark is a lower income household. Extremely low-
income households, defined as those with incomes under 30% of AMI, earn an annual income of $33,800
for a four-person household in 2020, and very low-income households earn up to $56,000. Housing
residents who earn extremely low or very low-incomes can be especially challenging. These groups
typically consist of minimum-wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, disabled persons, college students,
etc.—all of whom have difficulty finding affordable housing. Table 4-14 documents the prevalence of
lower income households in Moorpark.
Housing problems are disproportionately concentrated in lower income households. The most prevalent
housing problem among lower income households is housing overpayment, which far exceeds rates of
housing overcrowding. Among extremely low-income households, 81% of owners and 100% of renters
overpay for housing, and less than 1% of homeowners and 7% of renters live in overcrowded housing.
Though the prevalence of overpayment decreases as household income increases, a significant number
of lower income households still overpay for housing.
Responding to the needs of lower income households requires more than a one-size-fits-all strategy. The
most appropriate program depends on the age of the household, tenure, and housing needs. For
homeowners, particularly elderly living on a fixed income, providing housing support services (e.g., grants
to fix homes or social services) may be most needed. For college students seeking housing, providing
more options for them to secure apartment living or accessory units may be needed. For renters, they
can benefit most from housing choice vouchers or subsidized rental housing. And for disabled people,
the issue may be the simple lack of housing suited to their specific needs.
Table 4-14 Housing Problems of Lower Income Households
Tenure
Total
Households
Percent
Overpaying1
Percent
Overcrowded2
Any Housing
Problem3
Owners
Extremely Low-Income 240 81% 0% 79%
Very Low-Income 415 73% 7% 77%
Low-Income 910 52% 0% 53%
Renters
Extremely Low-Income 315 100% 7% 84%
Very Low-Income 495 91% 19% 92%
Low-Income 520 90% 4% 92%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2014-2018.
Notes:
1. Overpayment refers to households spending more than 30% of their income on housing.
2. Overcrowding refers to a housing unit with 1.0 or more persons living in a habitable room.
3. Housing problem refers to a household that experiences overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing.
48
Affordable housing is in short supply throughout the county, with demand largely outpacing supply. Over
its short history since incorporation, the City has been facilitating and assisting in the financing and
development of affordable housing for its residents. Since the City’s affordable housing efforts started in
the early 1990s, about 725 housing units (6% of the city’s housing stock) is deed restricted as affordable
to lower and moderate-income households. This section describes the affordable housing provided in
Moorpark along with the required analysis for projects at risk of conversion.
Figure 4-5 illustrates the City’s affordable
housing projects by the type of housing
provided, level of affordability, and
occupancy. The majority of affordable housing
for lower income residents is provided by
senior apartments or the mobile home park.
Affordable developers have provided some
single-family units affordable to lower income
households, such as the Villa Campesina.
Still, market rate developers have also
provided condominiums and single-family
homes for lower income households. The
City’s primary tool for facilitating the
production of affordable housing has been
the inclusionary housing requirement—10 to
15% of all units in a new project must provide
and deed restrict units affordable to lower or
moderate-income households.
The City is also active in using its limited land holdings to reduce the overall costs of developing housing.
This was the case for the Charles Street Apartments, which was developed by the Area Housing Authority
and Many Mansions. The City also provides financial assistance, often through the deferral or waiver of
developer fees or issuance of seller carryback loans.
Table 4-15 provides a summary of each affordable housing project that has been developed in Moorpark
and the applicable funding source, where known. Taken together, 725 affordable housing units have been
built with the following affordability distribution to households of different income levels: 23% very low-
income, 74% low-income, and 3% moderate-income.
Figure 4-5 Moorpark Affordable Housing
0
50
100
150
200
250
Condos SFR Homes Family Apts Senior Apts Mobile
HomesNumber of UnitsVery Low
Low
Moderate
Affordability Level
49
Table 4-15 Publicly Assisted Affordable Housing
Project Characteristics
Project Name
and Address
Target
Group
Total
Units
Affordable
Units Funding Source Built/Earliest
Expiration Date
Tafoya Terrace
344 Charles Street
Senior
Apts
31 30 lower
income units
Public Housing Built: 1986
Perpetuity
Vintage Crest
4700 Park Lane
Senior
Apts
189 48 very low;
141 low-income
Revenue Bond;
LIHTC; City
assistance
Built: 2002
Covenant: 2057
Charles Street Terrace
396 Charles Street
Family
Apts
19 15 very low
4 low-income
LIHTC; RDA land,
HOME; red Fee
Built: 2012
Perpetuity
Waterstone
4767 Moorpark Ave
Family
Apts
62 29 very low;
21 low; 12 Mod
DDA; Inclusionary
units
Built: 2003
Perpetuity
Walnut Apartments
80 Everett Street
Family
Apts
24 19 very low-
income units
VCHTF; HOME; fee
waiver; LIHTC
Built: 2018
Covenant: 2073
High Street Station
226 High Street
All Ages
Apts
79 10 moderate-
income
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built 2022
Perpetuity
Villa Del Arroyo
15750 Arroyo Drive
All Ages
MHP
240 (20%) 48 very
low-income
MHP Revenue
Bonds; RDA
Built: 1978
Covenant: 2040
Villa Campesina
Cabrillo EDC
Farmworkers
SFR
62 62 lower
income units
RDA funds; DDA
CDBG Funds
Built 1989
Perpetuity
Waverly Place
Pardee Home
All Ages
TH/Condo
102 28 lower
income units
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2008
Perpetuity
Ivy Lane
Shea Homes
All Ages
TH/Condo
99 18 lower
income unit
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2015
Perpetuity
Canterbury Lane
Shea Homes
All Ages
TH/Condo
102 7 lower
income unit
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2010
Perpetuity
Smart Living
Pardee Homes
All Ages
SFR
133 7 lower
income unit
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2014
Perpetuity
Mountain View
Cabrillo
All Ages
SFR
59 4 VL Income
11 Low-Income
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2002/04
Perpetuity
Brighton
Hovnanian-
All Ages
SFR
250 4 VL; 4 LI
9 Moderate
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2015
Perpetuity
Moonsong
Colmer
All Ages
SFR
22 2 Very Low
4 Low
DDA; AHA
Inclusionary
Built: 2004
Perpetuity
Source: City of Moorpark.
LIHTC: California Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
HOME: federal grants issued to cities for affordable housing
RDA: funds provided by the former Moorpark RDA
DDA: City Disposition and Development Agreement
Public housing: Owned by the County Housing Authority
VCHTF: Ventura County Housing Trust Fund
50
Pursuant to §65583(a)(9) of the Government Code, the Housing Element must include an analysis of
multiple-family projects built with public subsidies and show whether the housing is at risk of converting
to market rents. Where projects are at risk of conversion, the Housing Plan must propose a program to
encourage and facilitate the preservation of these units. None of the above projects are at risk of
conversion during the Housing Element planning period.
Qualified Entities
Owners of government-assisted developments cannot terminate subsidy contracts, prepay a federally
assisted mortgage, or discontinue use restrictions without first providing an exclusive "notice of
opportunity to submit an offer to purchase" to each identified qualified entity. State law requires the
Housing Element to identify local public agencies, public or private nonprofit corporations, and for-profit
organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk projects.
The entities in Table 4-16 are certified for Ventura County and can be found at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/preserving-existing-affordable-housing.shtml.
Table 4-16 List of Qualified Entities in Ventura County
Corporate Entity Address City
Developed
housing in
Moorpark
Century Housing Corporation 1000 Corporate Pointe Culver City No
A Community of Friends 836 Avalon Ave Lafayette No
Long Beach Affordable Housing, Inc 5855 Naples Plaza Long Beach No
Peoples' Self-Help Housing 3533 Empleo St. San Luis Obispo Yes
Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway Laguna Beach No
Nexus for Affordable Housing 1572 N. Main Street Orange No
Many Mansions, Inc. 1459 E. Thousand Oaks Bl. Thousand Oaks Yes
Coalition for Economic Survival 514 Shatto Place Los Angeles No
ROEM Development Corporation 1650 Lafayette Circle Santa Clara No
Abbey Road Inc. 15305 Rayen Street North Hills No
Innovative Housing Opportunities, 19772 Macarthur Blvd. Irvine No
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020.
The City of Moorpark has several additional organizations involved in housing development. These
include Habitat for Humanity, Area Housing Authority of Ventura County, and private developers who
build market rate projects and restrict a portion as affordable to low and/or moderate-income
households.
51
Housing constraints refer to land use regulations, housing policies, zoning, and other factors that
influence the price and availability of housing opportunities. This section provides an overview of the
City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other documents that identify public policies and
governmental regulations that may limit or enhance housing opportunities in Moorpark.
Nongovernmental constraints with respect to Housing Elements are those that constrain the building and
development community and its ability to build housing, especially housing affordable to low and
moderate-income households. The most significant constraints are: high land costs, high construction
costs (for labor, materials and financing), financing availability, and the availability of state funds (such as
tax credits). While these considerations are generally acknowledged to affect cities throughout Southern
California, there are different reasons driving each consideration in Ventura County.
Development Costs
Land cost is one of the primary costs of building housing.
Land costs include the costs of raw land, site
improvements, and all associated costs. Residential land in
Ventura County is expensive compared to land prices in
other Southern California markets, but for different
reasons. Land costs are influenced by: overall availability
within a given subregion; environmental conditions;
public service and infrastructure availability; and aesthetic
considerations such as views, terrain, and vegetation. For
an investor, the allowable density of residential
development also determines the per unit cost of land.
According to Redfin, land for single-family homes in the suburban core is priced from $25 to $50 per
square foot. The full development cost will be higher depending on site improvements, allowed density,
location, view, and suitability for residential development. This is particularly the case for hillside lots,
which have significant viewsheds. Land zoned for higher density housing is generally priced higher due
to local regulations that allow for more units per acre. An acre of vacant land zoned for multifamily
residential use (allowing 20 units per acre) can cost between $50 and $75 per square foot. Where feasible,
the City has assisted affordable housing developers by purchasing and donating land.
Moorpark is surrounded by steep hillsides. These hillside residential lots differ in price because they are
subject to different zoning and development regulations and have environmental constraints associated
with topography, wildfire hazards, infrastructure, and other potential constraints.
Vacant Residentially Zoned Site
52
Other than land, construction is also a significant part of
the overall cost of developing housing. Labor and
material costs are typically more standardized and vary
less between different types of housing. However, the
amenities offered can drive construction costs,
particularly higher end amenities, exterior design
features, and interior finishes. Often lesser known but
equally important is the availability of infrastructure to
serve development, particularly whether water, sewer,
and drainage facilities need to be installed or the site can
be served by existing utilities. The cost of utilities,
including undergrounding of utility lines, can also
materially add to the overall construction costs.
Construction cost estimates are typically provided either
by cost estimation companies or developers. R.S. Means, Reed Construction Data, and other cost
estimation firms provide construction cost manuals for calculating the average cost per square foot of
residential construction. Since regional estimates may not accurately reflect the actual costs in Moorpark,
estimates were provided by local developers. Construction costs for a good quality 1,800-square-foot
home range from $180 to $250 per square foot. This translates into a cost of $315,000 to $340,000 per
unit according to Habitat for Humanity. However, the cost per housing unit with a higher level of
amenities or custom construction would increase the average cost per unit.
The California HCD analyzed approximately 400 low-income housing tax credit projects and found that
construction costs were approximately 70% of the cost of developing affordable housing. Total costs
averaged $250,000 per unit or $300 per square foot. Other costs included developer fees (13 %),
demolition and site preparation (8%), and other fees (10%). An in-lieu housing fee study prepared in 2019
analyzed prototypical apartment projects in Ventura and Santa Barbara County and found that the
average, per-square-foot, direct construction cost was $334,000 per unit or $372 per square foot—similar
to the direct per unit construction costs of $327,000 for Walnut Avenue Apartments.
The building industry is continually interested in reducing the cost of construction, as it affects the profit
margin and affordability of the home. A reduction in construction costs can be brought about in several
ways: 1) a reduction in amenities and quality of building materials in new homes (still above the minimum
acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance); 2) approval (by the local building
departments) of materials and construction methods that are at least equivalent to those prescribed by
applicable State building codes; or 3) prefabricated, factory-built housing. If a city decides on any of these
three cost reduction measures, careful consideration must be given to long-term value of the housing.
Rather than reduce construction quality, the City’s approach to reducing development costs has been to
provide a combination of low-cost land, reduction or waiver in fees, and access to low-cost financing.
Residential neighborhood in Moorpark.
53
Growth Controls: Save Open and Agricultural Spaces
Growth management has long been a concern in Ventura County. In 1999, the City adopted the “SOAR”
(Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) Initiative. This initiative originated from public concern that
rapid urban development was threatening agricultural, open space, watershed, sensitive wetlands, and
riparian areas vital to Ventura County. Voters thus passed an initiative amending the General Plan to
direct population growth into incorporated areas where infrastructure is in place. SOAR establishes city-
urban restriction boundaries (CURB) around the perimeters of each city in Ventura County. If city
leadership seeks to expand its CURB beyond the existing limits into the sphere of influence, it must have
the approval of a majority of voters in the county.
In Moorpark, SOAR was re-extended by Measure E to continue until 2050. Unlike the city’s SOI boundaries,
the CURB boundaries in Moorpark are not universally coterminous with its geographic boundaries. In
1998, one property near the Moorpark Marketplace was transferred to Moorpark’s jurisdiction from
Ventura County. Since it is intended for open space conservation and no urban growth is permitted in
this area, it is not within the CURB boundary. In 2015, the City Council studied the potential annexation
of a property abutting Moorpark’s western boundary, but ultimately decided against the annexation and
subsequent CURB boundary expansion. Apart from the transfer of the open space property in 1998, the
CURB boundary has remained unchanged since SOAR was originally enacted.
If sufficient land resources are not available to address the City’s RHNA allocation, the SOAR Initiative
allows the City Council to amend the CURB line to comply with state law regarding the provision of
housing for all economic segments of the community. In order to invoke this provision, the council must
make the following findings:
• The land is immediately adjacent to existing compatibly developed areas, and 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).
• There is no existing residentially zoned land available within the CURB, and it is not reasonably feasible
to redesignate land within the CURB for such purposes.
• No more than 20 acres may be brought within the CURB (annexed into a community) for the purpose
of development on an annual basis.
The SOAR Initiative is intended to prevent the accelerated conversion of agricultural land and loss of open
spaces that define the landscape of Ventura County. Although this measure is a growth limitation
initiative, it will not prevent the City from meeting its RHNA for the following reasons: (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 Initiative has specific
amendment procedures that allow a city to accommodate the lower-income RHNA targets.
54
Environmental Constraints
Moorpark’s natural environment is marked with
hillsides, canyons, lush vegetation, and other natural
features that add visual character but also require
additional care with respect to development. Primary
environmental features that affect the feasibility and
cost of residential development include seismic,
wildfire, and flooding concerns.
Seismic Concerns
Moorpark is in a seismically active area, as is the
majority of Southern California. Five major faults are
near the city and capable of generating a 6.6
magnitude earthquake. These include the San Andreas
Fault Zone, Oak Ridge Fault, San Cayeano Fault, and
Santa Susana Fault. The Simi-Santa Rosa Fault Zone
extends 17 miles east-west from the Santa Susana Mountains along the northern margin of the Simi and
Tierra Rejada valleys and along the Las Posas Hills to their westerly termination. This fault system is also
designated an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and it crosses southeastern Moorpark.
Wildfire Hazards
Moorpark is framed by the Santa Susana Mountains to the north and the Simi Hills and Santa Monica
Mountains to the south. Topography ranges from 550 to 800 feet above sea level. Major ridgelines,
canyons, woodlands, rolling hillsides and knolls, and significant stands of trees define the community.
Rolling hillsides and canyons include Campus Canyon, Rustic Canyon, Happy Camp Canyon, Gabbert
Canyon, Walnut Canyon, and Strathearn Canyon. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has designated
areas to the north, south, and east as Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Flooding Concerns
Scattered portions of the city are designated Zone A, which represents areas with a 1% annual chance of
flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Three types of Zone A
designation are present throughout the city—Zones A, AE, and AH. In addition, the Arroyo Simi, Walnut
Canyon, Peach Hill Wash, and Happy Camp Canyon are designated Zone A (1% annual chance of flood
hazard). Peach Hill Wash and Arroyo Simi are designated “Regulatory Floodways.”
These environmental features add character but influence construction costs. The City amended the 2019
California Building Code and Residential Code to include stricter standards for foundation design and
footings; swimming pools; expansive soil conditions; and fire-resistant construction, including roof
materials, unreinforced footings, and engineered truss systems. These codes are designed to protect
structures from damages that could result from natural hazards in Moorpark.
55
On- and Off-Site Improvements
Residential developers are required to provide on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to
ensure public safety and quality of life, to mitigate identified environmental impacts, and to ensure orderly
development of land. Such improvements are also mandated by the State Subdivision Map Act and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City sets these requirements through the General Plan,
municipal code, or typical improvement conditions placed on all new development.
The municipal code requires a mix of “on-site improvements” or “off-site improvements” adjacent or near
the site. If not in place, their installation will be required as conditions of approval for the subdivision,
parcel map, or site development permit. These include: (1) interior streets, driveways, and other public
rights-of-way; 2) street improvements, including streetlights, street trees, traffic signals, sidewalks, etc.; 3)
utilities, including water, sewer, storm drains, and dry utilities underground to support new housing; and
4) land for park and recreation or easements for utilities, drainage, and other public improvements.
As shown in Table 4-17, Moorpark’s street standards vary by roadway designation and location. A typical
local residential street requires a 56-foot right-of-way, with two 18-foot travel lanes; these widths vary
based on project location and circulation design needs. Streets are also required to be outfitted with
utilities, street trees, light poles, and sidewalks on one or both sides. Rural collectors will have the least
required infrastructure. However, bicycle lanes and associated rights-of-way may be required.
Table 4-17 Street Infrastructure Requirements
Street
Classification
Number of
Lanes Right of Way Curb-Curb
Width
Other Street-Related
Improvements
6-lane arterial 6 110-120’ 90-104’ Bicycle lanes, lighting, trees,
utilities, and sidewalks may
be required.
4-lane Arterial 4 80-100’ 60-80’
Local Collector 2 50-70’ 35-54’
Rural Collector 2-4 70-90’ 54-64’
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code, 2020.
Note: Roadways must also meet all applicable fire safety standards required by the Ventura County Fire Protection District.
The City of Moorpark’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is the planning document used to plan for
physical improvements to the infrastructure of the community. It contains a description and schedule of
public improvements, including streets, bridges, and other facilities for the continued buildout of the city.
The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with public financing,
private financing, and private development. Although development fees and improvement requirements
increase the cost of housing, cities have little choice but to establish such requirements because of the
limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
56
Development Fees
Moorpark charges fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing adequate
public facilities, infrastructure, and municipal services are available to support residential projects. Fees
are based on appropriate local cost studies and nexus studies and are derived in accordance with state
law requirements. For planning fees, developers pay a deposit and then City staff charge direct processing
time based on an hourly rate. Table 4-18 lists the fees that make up the fee burden.
57
58
Table 4-18 Residential Planning and Building Fees
Types of Fees Notes
Residential Development
Single-Family Multiple-Family
Building Permit Plan Check Based on valuation 75% permit fee
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Based on Valuation 50% permit fee (each)
Engineering Fees Based on Cost Estimate
Planning Applications Hourly basis $120 to $270/hour
Administrative Permit Flat fee $860 $860
Conditional Use or Variance Deposit (hourly) $5,500 $5,500
General Plan/Zoning Change Deposit (hourly) $5,700 $5,700
Tentative Parcel/Tract Map Deposit (hourly) $7,900 to $10,000
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Deposit (hourly) $28,500 $28,500
Planned Development Permit Deposit (hourly) $21,500 $21,500
Development Agreement Deposit (hourly) $34,000 $34,000
Specific Plan Deposit (hourly) $43,000 $43,000
Environmental Reports Deposit (hourly) $5,700 to $7,200
Environmental Analysis Deposit (hourly) 100% of cost plus 15% fee
Impact Fees
Average Area of Contribution Flat Per Unit $9,638 $9,638
Citywide Traffic Mitigation Flat Per Unit $12,500 $12,500
Fire Protection Facilities Flat Per Unit $979 $722
Police Facilities Flat Per Unit $1,167 $1,167
Library Facility Flat Per Unit $926 $597
Park-In Lieu Calculated need $8,240 $10,500
Art Fee 1% Bldg Value $3,825 $1,410
Air Quality Fee Flat Per Unit $1,709 $1,203
Sewer Connection (per ERU) Flat Per Unit $4,985 $4,985
VCWD#1 Construction Charge Flat Per Unit $2,592 $2,592
Condition Compliance
Planning Condition Compliance
Review
100% of original Map/
PD deposit
$21,500 $21,500
Landscape Review & Inspection 100% of City cost, plus 15% administrative fee
Lighting Plan Review & Inspection 100% of City cost, plus 15% administrative fee
Source: City of Moorpark, 2021. Fees are posted online https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11764/Schedule-of-Fees-
and-Service-Charges?bidId=
59
While fees are a necessary part of the development review and application process and are required to
provide quality residential projects, fees can be considered a constraint if they are inordinately high. To
assess the financial burden of fees on the development and feasibility of new residential development,
the City developed three prototypes–accessory dwellings, single-family housing, and multiple-family
housing–of similar sized projects. The building valuation for each type of residential project was
calculated. Fees were determined by contacting city, county, school, and outside agencies.
As summarized in Table 4-19, total residential development fees ranged from approximately $57,000 to
$58,000 per single or multiple-family unit or approximately 17% of valuation. Accessory dwelling unit fees
are substantially less, at about $14,000 per unit or 4 of project valuation.
Table 4-19 Residential Development Fee Burden in Moorpark
Types of Fees
Residential Fees Per Unit
Accessory Unit
1,200 sf
Single-Family
1,200 sf
Multiple-Family
1,200 sf
Planning Fees
City Planning/Admin Fees $515 $530 $519
City Building Fees $6,550 $6,786 $6,613
City Facility Fees $3,192 $3,132 $2,546
City Engineering Fees None $1,500 $1,500
CEQA Fees None $2,000 $2,000
Impact Fees
City Development Fees None $31,838 $31,141
County Water and Sewer N/A1 $9,046 $9,046
School Fees $3,792 $4,032 $4,032
Total Fees Per Unit $14,050 $58,864 $57,397
Project Valuation $326,000 $345,000 $330,000
Fee as percent of Value 4.3% 17% 17%
Source: City of Moorpark, 2020
Note:
1. No county water and sewer fees apply if built on a lot with an existing home and no upgrade in the lateral is required.
The City recognizes that developer fees materially add to the overall cost of residential development and
may, for certain projects, discourage the development of housing. In some cases, the City has waived or
reduced exactions (e.g., utility undergrounding requirements) to reduce the fees required of developers.
The Housing Plan commits to a comprehensive fee study that will examine the cumulative impact of fees
and that will lead to adjustments to achieve full cost recovery, provide for needed infrastructure and
services, and allow for fee reductions to incentivize production of affordable housing.
60
Other Nongovernmental Factors
There are number of other nongovernmental factors that affect the timing of development. Government
Code §65583(a)(6) requires an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those
anticipated in the housing sites inventory. The analysis must also indicate the length of time between a
developer receiving approval for housing development and the submittal of a building permit application.
Further, the analysis must look at local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap
in the jurisdiction’s ability to meet the RHNA by income category.
Findings of this assessment are as follows:
• Density of Development. The City is known for lower housing densities than in urbanized counties
or urbanized portions of Ventura County. It is not uncommon for affordable housing to be built at
densities of 18 to 22 units per acre. Developers have obtained competitive grants to build affordable
housing for large families, seniors, and disabled people. Condominiums, townhomes, and single-family
homes are built at much lower densities to accommodate private yards, though the City is considering
new forms of housing at higher densities. Affordable projects built at maximum densities include:
» Walnut Avenue Apartments. 100% affordable project built at a density of 20 du/ac
» Charles Street Apartments. 100% affordable project built at 24 du/ac (125%)
• Timing of Development. The length of time between receiving approval for a housing project and
submittal of an application for a building permit varies. If the subdivision is new and requires
infrastructure, the developer could delay submittal for a building permit until infrastructure is in place.
For tracts with infrastructure in place, developers who received project approval will submit
construction documents for building permit in a shorter timeframe. Recent examples include:
» Walnut Avenue Apartments. Application May 2015. Occupided Sept. 2018
» Shea Homes - Canterbury Lane. Application Novermber 2010. Constructed 2015
» The City is reivising the application process for Residential Planned Development permits, which is
the primary means of approving residential developmens that are four or more units. The
timeframes above will therefore change as the new procedures are in place.
• Public Health Emergencies. Like communities across California, the COVID pandemic has impacted
the timing of residential development. Though it was initially estimated to last only six months, the
pandemic has now extended to triple that length. It is not uncommon for projects to be stalled due to
labor shortages, public health directives, or other market side effects (e.g., shortages and price
increases for lumber). The economic disruption is causing higher rates of inflation, again putting
pressure on materials and construction costs. The long-term impact of these factors is unknown, but
these market disruptions affect all communities in the southern California region. Thus time timeframes
61
The City of Moorpark is characterized as a suburban community containing a mix of residential
neighborhoods, commercial corridors and centers, industrial districts, civic and educational facilities,
parklands, and open spaces. This section describes the types, distribution, intensity, and character of land
uses allowing for residential land uses in the community.
General Plan Land Use
The land use element of the General Plan prescribes land use categories that guide the type, intensity, or
density of residential development in various locations of the community. Table 4-20 provides a summary
of the residential land use categories in the land use element. Basically, the General Plan provides for
seven primary residential land use categories, allowing for densities up to 20 units per acre. Zoning
districts and specific plans, discussed in the next section, provide further guidance for residential
development. The current general plan is being updated and land use designations may change.
Table 4-20 Existing General Plan Residential Land Use Categories
Category Purpose of Land Use Category Permitted
Density
Rural Low
Residential
Allow residential estate lots on minimum five-acre lots or using
clustering techniques for areas characterized by significant site
constraints, or areas of important visual and natural resources.
0.2 du/ac
Rural High
Residential
Allow residential uses on rural large estate lots or clustered single-
family homes, with significant permanent open space, consistent with
the constraints of the land.
1 du/ac
Low Density
Residential
Allow single-family homes on half acre lots or larger, or by clustered
single-family homes which are sensitive to the natural terrain and
minimize grading requirements.
1 du/ac
Medium Low
Density
Residential
Single-family residential development either in standard subdivision
form or using clustering techniques to minimize grading and to
conserve slopes of 20% or greater.
2 du/ac
Medium Density
Residential
Allow for single-family homes in standard residential subdivision form
or innovative designs which utilize clustering, zero lot line, or planned
development features.
4 du/ac
High Density
Residential
Allow attached and detached single-family and multiple family
attached units. Areas should have adequate and convenient access to
local streets, neighborhood commercial and recreational facilities.
7 du/ac
Very High Density
Residential
Allow attached units, apartments and condos near major community
facilities, business centers and major arterials. Projects should use
innovative site planning and provide onsite recreational amenities
16–20 du/ac
Source: Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element, 1992, Amended 2009.
Note: Additional mixed uses are allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan.
62
Housing Opportunities
State law requires the Housing Element to identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and
development standards to encourage the development of single-family and multifamily housing, factory-
built housing, mobile homes, housing for homeless people, care facilities, single-room occupancy, and
agricultural housing, among others. Table 4-21 highlights the zones where housing is allowed and
indicates the permitting process. Each of the permit procedures (zoning clearance, administrative permit,
conditional use permit, etc.) is described in Section 4.3.4, “Development Permit Procedures.”
Table 4-21 Residential Land Uses by Zone
Open
Space Rural Residential Urban Residential
Residential Use OS-AE R-A R-E R-O R-1 R-2 R-P-D RPD-20
U-N-D
Single-family Units (< 5 du) AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Manufactured Housing AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Factory-Built Housing See text
Duplex, Triplex, Quads AP2 AP2
Multiple-family (5 or more) RPD ZC
Mobile Homes CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Mixed Uses See text
Accessory Dwellings ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Affordable or Senior (<5 du) AP2 AP2 AP2
Residential Care, Small ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Transitional Housing NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC
Supportive Housing NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC NZC
Emergency Shelter CUP1 CUP1 CUP1 CUP1 CUP1 CUP1
Low Barrier Navigation Ctr See text
Single-Room Occupancy See text
Dwelling, Caretaker AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Farm Labor Dwelling ZC3 ZC3 ZC3
Source: City of Moorpark, Zoning Code, 2020.
Notes:
ZC = zoning clearance; CUP = conditional use permit; AP = administrative permit; NZC = no zoning clearance required
1 Allowed when in association with places of religious assembly pursuant to a conditional use permit .
2 Less than 5 affordable or senior housing units when in compliance with Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Code.
3 Allowed in accordance with requirements in MMC Chapter 17.28, Standards for Specific Uses .
63
Conventional Housing
The Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC) (Title 17,
Zoning) permits a wide range of conventional single-
family and multiple-family housing in numerous
zoning districts within the community. The following
describes these provisions, permits required, and
compliance with state law. Later sections of the
constraint analysis describe and analyze permitting
processes in greater detail.
Single-Family Housing
The MMC (§17.08.010) defines a single-family dwelling
as a detached building constructed in conformance
with the Uniform Building Code and designed or
occupied exclusively for a one family dwelling. A
dwelling unit means one or more rooms providing complete independent living facilities for one family,
including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation; but containing only
one set of kitchen-related fixtures capable of serving only one kitchen for the exclusive use of one family.
Single-family homes are allowed in all residential zones pursuant to an administrative permit.
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
In accordance with Government Code §65852.3, Moorpark allows manufactured homes certified under
national manufactured housing construction and safety standards on a permanent foundation in zones
that allow single-family homes. The City also allows mobile homes and mobile home parks. Except for
architectural design, the MMC requires adherence to the same residential development standards to
which a single-family home on the same lot would adhere. The City allows for mobile homes in single-
and multiple-family zones in accordance with a conditional use permit. The City has one mobile home
park (Villa del Arroyo Mobile Home Estates) that provides 240 housing units. Given the limited areas
remaining in the city for development, the City does not anticipate a new mobile home park.
Factory Built Housing
“’Factory-built housing’ means a residential building, dwelling unit, or an individual dwelling room or
combination of rooms thereof, or building component, assembly, or system manufactured in such a
manner… that is either wholly manufactured or is in substantial part manufactured at an off-site location
to be wholly or partially assembled onsite in accordance with state building standard.” Factory-built
housing does not include a mobile home, a recreational vehicle, or a commercial modular. The current
municipal code is unclear on whether such uses are explicitly permitted. The Housing Plan therefore
includes a program to clarify where factory-built housing is permitted and include a by-right permitting
process in accordance with state law as part of the zoning code update.
64
Duplexes, Triplexes, and Quadplexes
The MMC defines “multifamily dwelling” as a building, or portion of a building, containing three or more
dwelling units. This would include triplexes, quadplexes, and larger projects. As is the case with most
cities, Moorpark has a limited housing stock of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. These uses are
allowed in either the R-2 or RPD zone with an approved administrative permit. Up to four affordable or
senior housing units could also be built in these zones with an approved administrative permit.
Multifamily Residential
Multifamily dwelling means a building, or portion of a building, containing three or more units.
Multifamily housing is permitted in higher density urban residential zones, namely the R-2 and RPD zones.
An administrative permit is required for the R-2 zone. A residential planned development (RPD) permit is
required for all multiple-family housing (condominiums and apartments) in the RPD zone. These permits
have been used successfully to facilitate the development of townhomes, condominiums, and apartment
projects, including those offering deed restricted housing units affordable to lower income households.
However, multiple-family housing with five or more units are required to secure a RPD permit.
Mixed Use Residential
The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) allows mixed use development within the Commercial Old Town
Zone (C-O-T). Mixed commercial-residential projects are defined as those in which commercial uses
occupy all or a portion of the street level of a building or group of buildings, and residential uses primarily
occupy portions or all of the upper floors of the same building(s). Residential uses may be allowed on the
street level so long as they are tucked behind commercial uses or hidden from the street frontage. In
2020, the DTSP was amended to allow further flexibility in development standards for mixed uses. Mixed
uses are a conditionally permitted use and require an RPD permit.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
An ADU is an attached or detached unit on a lot with an existing single-family home, where the ADU
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provision
of living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An attached ADU is within the living area of the existing
single-family dwelling, where “living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including
basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. AB 2406 added
Government Code §65852.22, providing an option for Junior ADUs. JADUs are adaptations of the ADU
concept, but are allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence.
The MMC allows ADUs in all residential zones with a zoning clearance and allows JADUs and qualified
ADUs without a zoning clearance depending upon the unit specifications. The MMC currently allows
(J)ADUs in all zones that allow for residential uses, except for the O-S and TPD zones. The MMC §17.28.020
provides other standards related to accessory dwellings. The Housing Plan commits to an amendment of
the municipal code to allow (J)ADUs in all zones allowing either residential or mixed uses and to review,
and if needed, revise, regulations to ensure consistency with changes in state law.
65
Housing for Homeless People
State law requires cities to identify adequate sites and standards to facilitate and encourage the
development of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing to address
the needs of homeless people. The following briefly summarize the provisions for such housing.
Emergency Shelters
The MMC (§17.08.010) defines “emergency shelters” as housing with minimal supportive services for
homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person, and where no
individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. Such uses are
allowed conditionally in all residential zones with permitted places of religious assembly and in the C-2
zone with a zoning clearance. Emergency shelters are required to have a management plan. Limitations
include one shelter per lot, which must be at least 500 feet from any other shelter. Overnight occupancy
is limited to one bed per 70 square feet of sleeping area. Maximum occupancy is 30 beds.
Transitional Housing
The MMC (§17.08.010) defines “transitional housing” as buildings configured as rental housing
developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and
recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in
time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Transitional housing is
allowed in all residential zones (no zoning clearance required) and is subject to the same zoning
requirements and procedures as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. There are no
occupancy requirements, parking requirements, or special building standards for such uses.
Supportive Housing
The MMC (§17.08.010) defines “supportive housing” as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is
occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the
supportive-housing resident with retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing
their ability to live and work in the community. Supportive housing is allowed in all residential zones (no
zoning clearance required) and is subject to the same zoning requirements and procedures as other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone. There are no occupancy requirements, parking
requirements, or special building standards for such uses.
Low Barrier Navigation Center
A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on
moving people into permanent housing by providing temporary living facilities while case managers
connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and
housing. As required by Government Code §65662, a city must permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center
development as a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting
multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Housing Plan proposes a program to update the
MMC to allow a low barrier navigation center in accordance with Government Code §65662.
66
Sites for Emergency Shelters
In conformance with Senate Bill 2 (Government Code §§65583 and 65589.5), the zoning code allows
emergency shelters by right subject to objective development standards in the C-2 zone, and also at
existing established places of worship in residential zones, provided that the use is established in
coordination with an existing permitted religious facility. As shown in Figure 4-6, the C-2 zone in
downtown is approximately 7.5 acres and includes several vacant and underutilized sites that could
accommodate at least one year-round shelter for Moorpark’s limited homeless population. In addition,
11 permitted places of worship throughout Moorpark can provide shelter with a conditional use permit.
The C-2 zone in downtown Moorpark is suitable for siting a small emergency shelter. Resources are
available within close proximity. Within a one-square-mile area, residents can access supportive services,
including Moorpark Family Medical Clinic, First Five, Catholic Charities Pantry Plus, Ruben Castro Charities,
two smaller food markets, and other services. In addition, two Moorpark transit lines (Routes 1 and 2) run
from 6 am to 6 pm along Moorpark Avenue, with stops one block south at Los Angeles Avenue, providing
opportunities for residents to access employment nearby. Also, the library, senior center, community
center, city hall, and other public services are within a mile.
Figure 4-6 Locations Where Emergency Shelters Are Permitted
67
Housing for Senior and Disabled Persons
The MMC provides various codes to help encourage housing suited to people with disabilities and seniors
in the community in accordance with state law. The following paragraphs highlight examples of three
such housing facilities—small residential care facilities, single-room occupancy, and senior housing.
Residential Facilities
The MMC (§17.08.010) defines a residential care facility as “a facility providing nonmedical care on a 24-
hour basis to people who are mentally ill, mentally handicapped, physically disabled, or elderly, or are
dependent or neglected children, wards of the juvenile court, or other persons in need of personal
services, supervision or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of everyday living or for protection
of the individual.” State law preempts most local regulations for facilities serving six or fewer clients—
requiring that facilities serving six or fewer people be allowed by right in all residential zones and not be
subject to more stringent development standards, fees, taxes, and permit procedures than required of
the same type of housing in the same zone. The MMC does not list small residential care facilities in the
land use table as the City abides by the requirements within state law. The Housing Plan proposes a
program to review and, if needed, revise municipal codes to clarify how to treat these uses.
Single Room Occupancy
Single-room-occupancy (SRO) facilities are intended to provide housing opportunities for lower-income,
one- or two-person households that cannot typically afford apartments. SROs are small, one-room units
occupied by a single individual and may have either shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities.
SROs can provide a valuable form of affordable housing for lower income individuals, seniors, and persons
with disabilities. State law requires local Housing Elements to make provisions for such uses. The MMC
defines a single room occupancy unit as a housing unit in a multiple-unit building or facility consisting of
a single room with private/shared bath facilities and with private/shared cooking facilities. The MMC
permits SROs in the C-2 zone that meet development standards (e.g., unit sizes, spacing requirements),
receive a zoning clearance, and submit an operational plan required by MMC Chapter 17.28.
Senior Housing
With the aging of the baby boom population in many cities, senior housing is increasingly needed. The
MMC does not define senior housing because such uses often cover a wide range of residential uses,
such as continuing retirement communities, age-restricted apartments, assisted living, and other housing
types. Several senior housing projects have been recently approved in Moorpark. The MMC allows senior
housing with five or fewer units, like other multiple-family projects, subject to an administrative permit,
within the R-1, R-2, and RPD zones. Larger units are permitted through a planned development permit.
Recent projects approved for seniors include Aldersgate and Oakmont. To provide more clarity with
respect to permitting, development standards, regulations, and density or other incentives, the Housing
Plan includes a program to review and, if necessary, revise municipal code provisions regarding senior
housing to facilitate and encourage the development of this type of housing in Moorpark.
68
Farmworker Housing
Moorpark, like many communities in Ventura County, was an agricultural community and, due to SOAR,
many agricultural uses remain in the county. However, with the residential development in Moorpark over
the past 40 years, only 2% of the land remains for such uses. Nonetheless, State law requires that local
Housing Elements and city municipal codes and regulations make provisions for farmworker, employee,
and agricultural housing. These codes are generally found in Health and Safety Code §§17021.5 and
17021.6.
The MMC defines farmworker dwellings as “a dwelling unit used by a farm worker, and his or her family,
employed and working on or hired from the premises.” The MMC allows farmworker housing by right
pursuant to a zoning clearance in rural zones (O-S, A-E, R-A, and R-E). Standards for such housing include:
• A minimum lot size of 5 acres as required for agricultural uses.
• Farm worker dwellings of no more than 12 units designed for use by a single-family or household or
36 in group sleeping quarters.
• Parking requirements of one covered space per unit or three beds in the group sleeping quarters.
• A permit from HCD as required by the Employee Housing Act and restricted farmworker occupancy.
• Occupancy limitations to reserve housing to farm workers and their families.
• General development, lighting, and maintenance requirements.
The MMC defines a caretaker dwelling as a dwelling unit used by a caretaker and their family, employed
and working on the premises. Caretaker means an employee who must be on the property for a
substantial portion of each day for security purposes or for the vital care of people, plants, animals,
equipment, or other conditions of the site, and who does not have a possessory interest in the property.
The MMC also permits caretaker housing in its agricultural, open space, and residential zones with an
approved zoning clearance and adherence to development standards.
The California Health and Safety Code §17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer persons to be
treated as a single-family structure and residential use. Section 17021.6 requires that employee housing
consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters, or 12 units or less designed for use by a single-
family or household to be treated as an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or
other zoning clearance is required for this type of employee housing that is not required of any other
family dwelling (§17021.5 facility) or agricultural activity (§17021.6 facility) in the same zone. Such uses
cannot be subject to any business taxes, local registration fees, use permit fees, or other fees to which
other agricultural activities in the same zone are not subject.
Though the MMC appears to address some of the requirements, the Housing Plan proposes a program
to review the current statutory requirements, including for employee housing, and if needed, revise the
code to mirror the regulations in the California Health and Safety Code.
69
The City requires adherence to residential development standards, building codes, and other
requirements as a condition of building housing in Moorpark. As described herein, these standards are
designed to maintain the quality of housing built in the community. Additional flexibility is offered for
projects that meet community goals, including the production of affordable housing.
Residential Development Standards
The zoning code (Title 17of the MMC) provides residential development standards for different types of
housing. The zoning districts are the City’s codes and regulations by which it controls and permits
activities and the physical form of structures. The zoning districts are more stringent than the land use
designations because they apply the general vision of the land use element to reflect the specific
characteristics, opportunities, and challenges for each property. Table 4-22 provides a summary of the
residential development standards for the primary residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones.
Table 4-22 Residential Development Standards
Open Space Rural Residential Urban Residential
Standards OS | AE R-A R-E R-O R-1 R-2 R-P-D1
Building Standards
Density (maximum) 0.1 | 0.25 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 15.0 20.0
Unit size (minimum) n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Structure height max) 35’ | 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’
Lot Standards
Net lot area (sqft.) 10 | 40 ac 1 ac 20,000 10,000 6,225 6,500 By permit
Max lot coverage (%) 20 | 10 35 35 35 50 50 By permit
Lot Width 110’ | 110’ 100’ 80’ 80’ 60’ 60’ By permit
Lot Depth 150’ | 150’ 150’ 100’ 100’ 100’ 100’ By permit
Building Setback
Front Yard Setback 20’ | 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’
Side Yard (Interior lot) 10’ | 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Side Yard (Street lot) 10’ | 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’
Rear Yard Setback 15’ | 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’
Residential Parking (See Table 4-23)
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code, 2020.
1 R-P-D zoning and development standards for lot standards will vary depending on the size of the lot, environmental features, and ultimate density
sought. Final standards are agreed upon through an approved development agreement.
70
Parking Standards
Adequate parking is an important component of well-designed development and is intended to
contribute to the value of a project; the safety of residents; and the project’s appearance and overall
livability. The City’s parking regulations are also intended to promote efficient land use, reduce street
congestion and traffic hazards, promote vehicular and pedestrian safety, and improve the ability to
finance a project. Table 4-23 lists the parking requirements for residential developments.
Table 4-23 Residential Parking Requirements
Housing Type Base Parking Standard Guest Parking
Requirement
Dwellings, single or two
units on a lot
2 spaces in a garage for dwellings < 2,800 sq. ft.
3 spaces in a garage for dwellings > 2,800 sq. ft. None Required
Dwellings, multiple
(greater than 2 units)
1 covered space for each bachelor or studio unit
1.75 covered space for each 1 bedroom unit
2 spaces per 2bedroom unit, 1 covered in a garage
for all units (except
one-bedroom units)
0.5 guest space per
unit
Mobile Home Parks 2 tandem spaces covered in a garage or carport 1 guest space for each
4 mobile homes
Care Facilities < 12 people
in a single-family home 2 spaces in a garage None Required
Care facilities not in a
single-family home 1 space per 2 beds plus 1 space per 500 square feet None Required
Farmworker dwellings
1 off-street covered space for each home and one
space for each three beds in group sleeping
quarters
Senior housing for
residents 55 years plus
0.5 spaces per dwelling unit
(0.25 spaces shall be in a garage or carport) None Required
Emergency, transition &
supportive housing Not explicitly stated
Single-Room Occupancy Not explicitly stated
Accessory Dwelling 1 parking space, + required parking for the existing
single-family dwelling on the same lot. None Required
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code, 2020.
The City has reduced parking standards through development agreements to encourage the production
of affordable housing. The City also allows reduced parking, consistent with state density-bonus law
(Government Code §65915), upon the developer’s request. Parking waivers may be granted by the City
Council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. The procedural requirements for
a parking waiver are the same as for a variance (MMC §17.44.040(E)).
71
Flexibility in Development Standards
The MMC offers provisions for obtaining relief from the strict application of residential development
standards. These zoning code provisions include the variance and administrative exception, which are
detailed in MMC §17.44.040, Discretionary Permits. These provisions are distinct from modifications
allowed through a density bonus because neither tool requires the provision of affordable housing.
Variance
A variance may be granted to allow deviations from residential standards such as setbacks, height, lot
coverage, lot area and width, signs, off-street parking, landscaping and wall, fencing, and screening
standards. A variance may not be granted to authorize a use or activity as a substitute to an amendment
to these zoning regulations. Except when a variance is filed as part of a planned development permit or
conditional use permit, variance requests are heard and decided by the Planning Commission through a
public hearing process. Prior to approving, conditionally approving, or denying an application for a
variance, the Planning Commission adopts written findings by resolution and based upon substantial
evidence in view of the whole record to justify the decision. The decision-making authority may approve,
conditionally approve, deny or modify, wholly or partly, the application being reviewed. Given the findings
and process required for obtaining a variance, however, this tool is not often used.
Administrative Exception
An administrative exception may be granted by the community development director for minor
adjustments to the zoning regulations. An administrative exception may be granted only once from the
development code or approved PDP and may be granted only in the following situations:
• To allow a decrease of up to 20% in any required minimum setback, provided that such exception may
be granted only once from the minimum standard adopted by this code.
• To allow walls, fences or hedges to exceed the height limit regulations by a maximum of one foot in
setback areas, except in a required sight triangle.
• To allow an increase up to 10% for maximum building coverage, sign area, or sign height.
Conversations with developers emphasized the need for exceptions to facilitate the development of
housing. Given the irregular shape and size of individual parcels, concern arose about the difficulty of
finding an appropriate site and then “parking it” before determining the layout and building footprint
that can be accommodated. While the density bonus program allows for parking reductions for affordable
projects, there is not a similar provision for market rate projects, particularly townhomes. In addition,
open space requirements can be challenging given drainage standards that require onsite percolation.
The administrative exception is not often used. The Housing Plan contains a program to review the
administrative exception process to determine whether additional flexibility in existing development
standards and other development standards is warranted in this code provision.
72
Suitability of Zoning for Affordable Housing
Pursuant to Government Code §65583.2(c)(3), the Housing Element must demonstrate the adequacy of
density standards to accommodate a city’s regional need for all income levels. To meet this statutory
requirement, the Housing Element should provide an analysis demonstrating how adopted densities
accommodate the regional housing need for lower income households. The analysis shall include, but is
not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development
project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.
Government Code §65583.2(c)(3)(B) allows local governments to use “default” density standards that are
“deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households.” The default density option
is not a mandated density. The default density standard provides a streamlined option for local
governments to meet the density requirement. No analysis to establish the appropriateness of the default
density is required, and the HCD must accept that density as appropriate in its review. The default density
for Ventura County is currently 20 dwelling units per acre under state law.
The default density of 20 units per acre continues to be appropriate for Moorpark. During the past decade,
the City has been successful in facilitating and encouraging the production of affordable units in the
RPD-19 and RPD-20 zones. Table 4-24 lists three recent projects developed and approved during the 4th,
5th, and the 6th cycle Housing Elements that are affordable to lower income households.
Table 4-24 Suitability of RPD-20 Zone for Affordable Housing
Affordable Projects
Charles Street Walnut Avenue Essex (Vendra)
Characteristics
Year Built 2012 2018 Approved 2021
Zoning District RPD-20U RPD-20U RPD-19U
Project Units 20 24 200
Project Density Achieved 21 24 18.9
Percent of Maximum Density 100%+ 125% 100%
Incentives
Donated Land Yes Yes No
Fee Deferred/Waiver Yes Yes Yes
Density Bonus Yes Yes No
Regulatory/Financial Incentives Yes Yes Yes
Source: City of Moorpark, 2020.
73
Affordable Housing Incentives
The MMC §17.64.010 was enacted to encourage the provision of housing affordable to very low, low, and
moderate-income households. Specifically, the city’s intent is not only to encourage the provision of
housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households, but to encourage the provision
of housing for senior citizens, transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, and homeless persons,
consistent with the latest adopted Moorpark General Plan, the requirements of Government Code §65915
et seq., and the MMC.
Under §17.64.030, the City Council shall grant a density bonus and, if requested by the applicant,
concessions or incentives and/or waivers or reductions of development standards and/or parking ratios
for eligible residential and mixed-use commercial development projects in accordance with state density
bonus law and this chapter through the approval of a residential or mixed-use commercial planned
development permit, development agreement in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the MMC, and/or
disposition and development agreement, and a housing agreement.
For density bonuses higher than required by state law, the City Council must find that: (a) the project will
help to meet a local housing need for family housing as identified by the Housing Element of the General
Plan; and (b) the project will be compatible with surrounding development. The City Council may grant
density bonuses higher than required by state law in accordance with the following standards:
• When 100% of units in a housing project are restricted as affordable to low- or very-low-income
households for the project’s life, a density bonus up to 100% greater density than allowed by the
existing zone may be granted by the City Council when considering project entitlements. The 100%
density bonus is inclusive of all density bonuses allowed under state and local law.
• When at least 60% of units in a housing development project are restricted as affordable to low- or
very-low-income households for the life of the project, a density bonus up to a maximum of 75%
greater density than allowed by the existing zone may be granted by the City Council when considering
project entitlements. The 75% density bonus is inclusive of all density bonuses allowed under
Government Code §65915 et seq. and Chapter 17.64 of the zoning code.
• Density bonuses higher than required by state law may not be granted for age-restricted senior
housing projects and housing projects for foster youth, disabled persons, and homeless persons.
Concessions and/or incentives determined by the City Council necessary in order to develop affordable
units in lieu of or in addition to density bonuses may include, but are not limited to: a) a reduction in
development standards by an amount not to exceed 20%, or a reduction in architectural design
requirements beyond the minimum standards adopted by the city; and b) other regulatory incentives or
concessions proposed by the developer or the city, which result in identifiable cost reductions.
The Housing Plan contains a program to review and revise the density bonus provisions to accommodate
recent changes in state law since municipal code provisions were last updated in 2017.
74
Inclusionary Housing
The City’s practice has been to require that 10 to 15% of all units in Specific Plan projects and 15 to 20%
of all units in projects in the former redevelopment area be affordable to low and moderate-income
households. Through a negotiated development agreement and affordable housing agreement,
developers unable to provide onsite or offsite units are assessed in-lieu fees based upon the estimated
cost of providing affordable units, or acquiring units or building units off-site, or providing land
donations. The City Council’s fee expenditure policy prioritizes how in-lieu housing fees should be spent:
1) first priority, for affordable housing production; 2) second priority, for subsidies for affordable housing;
3) third priority, for housing rehabilitation; and 4) fourth priority, for housing assistance.
The City’s inclusionary program has been
successful in creating affordable ownership and
rental housing for Moorpark residents. Recent
examples include 62 units of very low, low, and
moderate-income affordable units at the
Waterstone Apartments. In addition, the City
required that the 102-unit Waverly Place
Townhomes include 28 units affordable to lower
income households. Moreover, as discussed in
the regional housing needs section, residential
development projects in the pipeline will provide
more affordable ownership and rental units for
income-eligible households.
While the inclusionary program has been
successful in ensuring the development of affordable housing, the City recognizes that the program is
limited in scope, covering only a portion of the city. Moreover, the program is initiated when a
development agreement is required—such as when a developer proposes a project that requires a
legislative action (zone change, General Plan amendment, etc.) In practice, these discretionary actions
extend the time frame required to approve residential projects, adding significant and avoidable costs. In
order to remove the requirement for discretionary agreements and still obtain affordable housing units,
the Housing Plan proposes a program to develop an inclusionary program that can be applied citywide.
The City anticipates that the inclusionary housing program will continue, as amended, to ensure that
obligations for providing affordable housing commensurate with the regional housing needs mandate
will continue to be provided while also providing affordable housing to Moorpark residents. The
inclusionary program, including in-lieu fee and land donation options, would be developed through a
nexus study that meets applicable requirements under state law. The Housing Plan contains greater detail
on the City’s policies and programs regarding inclusionary housing obligations.
Waverly Place Townhomes
75
Building Codes and their Enforcement
The California Health and Safety Code requires cities to adopt the most recent edition of California
Building Standards Codes (known as Title 24) related to building standards for buildings, building
equipment, and other features. These codes are updated every three years by the California Building
Standards Commission based on amendments proposed by various regulatory and professional
organizations. The most recent edition of the building codes was for 2019 and was effective January 1,
2020. These codes replace the 2016 edition previously codified in the MMC.
In 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 474, adopting the California Building Codes (with
amendments as allowed) as part of the MMC. This includes the 2019 version of the Ventura County Fire
Code and the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code. Other codes adopted included the 2019
version of the California Building Code, Residential Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical
Code, Green Building Code, Energy Code, and Historical Building Code. These codes reflect amendments
made since the 2016 model codes were adopted.
Cities may adopt revisions to address local topographic, climatic, or hazards within their community . In
addition, the legislature passed AB 2911 related to construction of new buildings and structures, and with
vegetation and brush management to reduce the potential for wildfires in hazard zones. The City’s
amendments to the code include stricter standards for foundation design, swimming pools, expansive
soil conditions, fire-resistive construction, unreinforced footings, and engineered truss systems.
Amendments to the Fire Code address state requirements of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
These amendments are not unlike other jurisdictions in the vicinity of the city that have similar concerns.
The Code Compliance Division is responsible for ensuring that properties and buildings are maintained
in compliance with City codes. In that effort, Code Compliance staff coordinates compliance actions with
the Building and Safety Division, Engineering Division, Police Department (County Sheriff), City Attorney,
and other City departments. The Code Compliance Division responds to citizen complaints and conducts
surveys to identify, investigate, and remediate municipal code violations, housing and occupancy
violations, property maintenance concerns, and other public nuisances. The City does not target code
compliance efforts in any one neighborhood, but responds based on complaints.
The Code Compliance Division works with the community to investigate and resolve violations of the
MMC; conditions of approval; and local, state, and federal law. On March 7, 2012, the City Council adopted
Resolution 2012-3091 establishing Policy 4.3: Code Compliance Program, to create a clear and concise
guide to achieve and maintain compliance with the MMC. This guidance is provided on the City’s website
to ensure clarity about expectations for property conditions and the process for addressing code
compliance issues in the community.
In summary, the City’s building and property maintenance codes are similar to those in surrounding cities
and are enforced in a uniform and consistent manner, and therefore are not considered constraints to
the feasibility of developing, maintaining, or improving housing in Moorpark.
76
Design Review
Design review is accomplished through three means—specific plans, through the RPD process for projects
of five units or more, or through specific requirements of overlay zones. The RPD and design review
process begins with a joint application submitted to the Community Development Department. City staff
meet with the developer to discuss the project and, upon request by the applicant, provide appropriate
direction and example projects that meet City design standards. Once the project schematics are
completed, staff reviews the application to make sure it is complete, then prepares a written report
assessing the overall design and consistency with City development standards.
Following staff review of the application, 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 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, and welfare.
• Is compatible with the scale, visual character, and design of surrounding properties.
Currently, the City of Moorpark does not have stand-alone residential design guidelines that are applied
citywide. Instead, residential design standards are negotiated on a project-by-project basis. At times, the
lack of standards has resulted in delays for approving and conditioning applications for residential
development projects. Regardless, the City’s process has historically been successful in facilitating the
development of large-scale residential projects, including the Moorpark Highlands, Carlsberg Specific
Plan, and Downtown mixed-use and residential development.
Looking forward, the City seeks to provide greater certainty to the development community regarding
the City’s expectations for residential development and comply with applicable state law. The State of
California requires streamlined housing approval by establishing a by-right, ministerial approval process
for multifamily residential development. An important step to streamlining project approvals is the
replacement of subjective design “guidelines” with objective design “standards.” Senate Bill 35
(Government Code §65913.4) requires local governments to establish objective development and design
standards to facilitate and encourage the development of residential uses.
To comply with this legislation, the Housing Plan contains a program to draft and adopt objective
development and design standards that can improve certainty for the development community regarding
the design of residential and mixed-use projects, and also meet the City’s and community’s expectations
regarding the quality of new housing projects that provide lasting quality of life for residents.
77
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Government Code §65583(a)(7) requires an assessment of housing needs and inventory of resources and
constraints, including an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development. This section inventories and analyzes the opportunities to encourage the incorporation of
energy-saving features, energy-saving materials, and energy-efficient systems and design for residential
development. Maximizing energy efficiency/conservation can contribute to reduced housing costs,
promote sustainable community design, reduce dependence on vehicles, and reduce greenhouse gases.
The City incorporates energy conservation opportunities through its building codes, land use and zoning,
permitting standards, and municipal codes:
• Building Practices. The City adopted the 2019 editions of the Green Building Standards Code and the
California Energy Code, published by the International Code Council. These codes govern the
development, improvement, and rehabilitation of housing with respect to energy efficiency and
conservation. According to the California Energy Commission’s FAQs, the 2019 standards will increase
the cost of building a new home by $9,500 (but will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs
over three decades) and add about $40 per month for the average home based on a 30-year mortgage
(but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling, and lighting bills).
• Permitting Standards. The City adopted an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small
residential rooftop solar energy systems and electric-vehicle charging stations in compliance with
§§65850.5 and §65850.7 of the Government Code (Ord. 455 §2, 2017; Ord. 435 §2, 2015). The permit
process, standard plan(s), and checklist(s) substantially conform to recommendations for expedited
permitting, including checklist and standard plans in the California Solar Permitting Guidebook
adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
• Clean Power Procurement. The City is a member of the Clean Power Alliance, a nonprofit entity,
formed through a joint powers authority and made up of 31 public agencies to bring clean, renewable
power choices to communities. Clean Power Alliance offers three rate options—Lean Power, which
provides 36% renewable content at the lowest possible cost; Clean Power, which provides 50%
renewable content at competitive; and 100% Green Power, which provides 100% renewable content
at a higher cost. The City’s default option is Clean Power.
• Planning and Zoning. In 1994, the City adopted the R-P-D zone. The intent was to encourage: 1)
coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with existing or potential development of
surrounding areas; 2) efficient use of land, particularly through the clustering of housing and the
preservation of the natural features of sites; 3) variety and innovation in site design, density, and
housing options, 4) lower housing costs through the reduction of street and utility networks; and 5) a
more varied, attractive and energy-efficient living environment as well as greater opportunities for
recreation than would be possible under other zone classifications. The RPD has become the primary
method of reviewing developments with five or more units in Moorpark.
78
The City’s development review procedures are designed to streamline permitting and ensure that
residential development proceeds in an orderly manner and contributes to the community. Different
mechanisms are used to approve residential projects based on the size, complexity, and potential impact.
The approach is to allow by-right administrative approval for smaller projects with low potential for land
use conflicts, with more complex projects being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The most commonly used planning and development permit processes are summarized below and are
articulated in further detail in the MMC §17.44.040, Discretionary permits and exceptions.
Zoning Clearance
The zoning clearance is applied to projects that are allowed by right. It is used to ensure that the proposed
development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and meets requirements of the
zoning code. The zoning clearance is a ministerial permit granted by the Director of Community
Development without a public hearing. Approval is typically granted within one to three days from
submittal of a complete application. Examples of projects requiring only zoning clearance include ADUs,
large family daycare homes; room additions; fences and walls greater than six feet in height; retaining
walls greater than three feet in height; swimming pools, wading pools and spas; and maintenance and
minor repair to buildings involving structural alterations.
Administrative Permit
An administrative permit is required prior to the initiation of uses and structures in a given zone where
review and approval by the Community Development Director (without a public hearing) is required to
assure compliance with the provisions of the Moorpark Municipal Code. An administrative permit
application is subject to site plan and architectural review. Projects typically include standard construction
single-family homes to ensure that structures are compatible and meet existing codes. These projects
typically qualify for minor CEQA clearance, such as a categorical exemption. Project approval is typically
received within one month from the submittal of a complete application. To facilitate the approval of
administrative permits, the City provides a standard application on its website.
Conditional Use Permit
A conditional use permit is required for certain residential/group quarters (e.g., mobile home parks,
boarding houses, emergency shelters in residential zones) where adjacency and operational requirements
are needed. Development projects are required to meet site development standards and submit site plans
and architecture plans. For residential developments, the decision-making body is the planning
commission, with appeals heard by the city council. Typical review and approval time ranges from three
to nine months, depending on project complexity and required CEQA review. The Planning Commission
must make standard findings to approve a conditional use permit. To facilitate the review and approval
of conditional use process, the City Council makes a standard application available on its website.
79
Residential Planned Development Permit
When Moorpark incorporated in 1983, the county’s zoning and development code was originally brought
into the City’s zoning code. At that time, much of the City was zoned for agricultural purposes.
Development sprang up quickly, and former agricultural lots were proposed for residential development.
The two means for processing larger scale or higher density residential projects were either specific plans
or residential planned development permits. These tools were suited to deal with the unique topography
in Ventura County, environmental constraints, and the specific needs of developers and builders.
Residential planned development permits are still required for new projects of five or more dwelling units
and for projects associated with land subdivision, land use or zone change, or development agreement.
As part of the RPD permit process, the City often negotiates development agreements with larger
property owners and developers to obtain commitments to affordable housing, such as a 15%
inclusionary housing agreement, “in-lieu” fees, or land donation for affordable housing. Over time, the
RPD permit has been used to permit larger projects and obtain affordable housing. Many of the pipeline
projects with affordable units were processed through the RPD permit process.
The City offers the option of pre-application meetings to discuss project requirements with staff. These
meetings help expedite the permit process by identifying key issues early, thereby avoiding multiple
rounds of review, reducing design costs, and increasing development certainty. Typical review will vary
significantly, depending on project complexity and the level of CEQA review required. Conditions of
approval typically ensure compliance with existing standards in the municipal code to address parking,
landscaping, trash storage and disposal services, minimum and maximum standards related to varieties
of architectural designs of units, setbacks, and circulation and access.
Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines are intended to enhance
the long-term protection of the environment, encourage public participation in the process, and inform
decision makers of the potential environmental impacts from a project. They present objectives, criteria,
and procedures for the evaluation of proposed residential development projects. The form of
environment review may include the preparation of a categorical exemption, negative declaration (ND),
mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR).
For applications for typical residential projects, the environmental review is often accomplished with an
Initial Study (IS)/ND if the project is consistent with the General Plan, or an M/ND if impacts can be
mitigated. However, an EIR is required for residential projects whose impacts that cannot be mitigated to
the applicable threshold of significance. In general, these are larger projects that will require additional
time due to the complexity involved with complying with CEQA, additional technical studies needed to
assess the project impacts, and mandated public review. Complying with CEQA is required but adds to
the overall development processing time.
80
Time Frame
The time frame for reviewing and approving permit applications and discretionary approvals varies on a
case-by-case basis. The time needed to review projects 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 city. For larger development projects subject 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
Table 4-25 lists general time frames associated with discretionary and administrative permits required for
the processing, review, conditioning, and approval of applications for residential development.
Simultaneous processing of entitlements (e.g., subdivisions and planned developments permits) is also
provided as a means of expediting the review process. These procedures help to ensure that the
development review process meets all legal requirements without causing unwarranted delays.
Table 4-25 Development Time Frames
Permits and Review Timeframe Factors Affecting Time
Pre-application Review 4 months Complexity; special study needs
Variance 6 months Complexity and level of review
Zone Clearance 1–3 days Scale of project
Administrative Permit 1 month Completeness of application
Conditional Use Permit 3–6 months Scale of project; environmental
Planned Development 6–8 months Scale of project/completeness
Subdivision Map 6–12 months Environmental/design issues
Zone Change1 12+ months Complexity and level of review
General Plan Amendment1 12+ months Complexity and level of review
Environmental Impact Report1 12+ months Scale and complexity of project
Source: City of Moorpark, 2020.
1 A negotiated development agreement is typically associated with these applications and can further impact the timing of the associated
entitlements.
As mentioned above, the cumulative time frame to process residential development projects varies.
Projects requiring an RPD permit or PD permit can be processed in less than a year, but if the project
triggers a development agreement or other legislative action, the project can take two or three years.
Smaller by-right projects can take well under a year to move through the development application
process. The City has not received an SB 35 request for expedited permit processing, but a program will
be included in the Housing Plan to develop a procedure for meeting timelines required under state law.
81
Reasonable Accommodation
Over the past decade, local governments have become more sensitive to creating accessible
environments, from playgrounds to housing, that allow people with disabilities to live in their
communities. In 2013, the City adopted Ordinance 420, establishing a process for requesting a reasonable
accommodation that would allow for consideration of a modification or exception to the standards,
regulations, policies, and procedures for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related
facilities, to provide an individual with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
The community development director is the decision-maker for a reasonable accommodation that is not
made in conjunction with a discretionary approval that would require Planning Commission review. The
community development director may refer the processing of the reasonable accommodation to the
Planning Commission for review if the request is submitted in conjunction with a request for a separate
discretionary approval.
The reviewing authority shall approve the request for a reasonable accommodation if it finds, based on
all of the evidence presented, that all of the following findings can be made:
• The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more disabled persons
protected under the fair housing laws who will occupy the dwelling.
• The requested accommodation is necessary to give one or more disabled persons an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
• The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the
City, as “undue financial or administrative burden” is defined in the fair housing laws.
• The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s
zoning code, as “fundamental alteration” is defined in the fair housing laws.
• The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to
the health or safety of other individuals or physical damage to the property of others.
The reviewing authority issues a written determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a
request for a reasonable accommodation. The reviewing authority may approve an alternative to the
requested reasonable accommodation if the alternative would also allow an equivalent level of access or
use to the residence but also reduce the impacts to neighboring properties or the surrounding area. The
written determination is final unless appealed.
The City Planning Division has received very few requests for reasonable accommodations. Only one was
received and approved during the prior Housing Element planning period. Because reasonable
accommodations are a valued way to allow residents to age in place and remain in their homes, the
Housing Plan contains a program to publicize the program to increase participation.
82
This section addresses the fair housing requirements for Housing Elements. It begins with an overview of
key requirements, describes outreach efforts to date, and then provides the requisite analysis. Programs
to address concerns are detailed in the Housing Plan.
One of the most significant trends in state Housing Element law
has been in the arena of fair housing. With the passage of AB 686
in 2019, all Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021,
must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent
with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of 2015.
AFFH means “taking meaningful actions that, taken together,
address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to
opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly
integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil
rights and fair housing laws” (Government Code §8899.50(a)).
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has issued guidance for
incorporating fair housing into the update of the Housing Element. The following AFH conforms to these
requirements, including its structure to address three primary areas required by the State.2
• Fair Housing Assessment. A summary of fair housing issues, patterns of segregation, or other barriers
to fair housing, and prioritization of contributing factors.
• Sites Inventory. The identification of sites for housing to accommodate all income levels of the city’s
RHNA that also further integrated communities (see Housing Resources Chapter).
• Housing Programs. Programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing choice for
protected classes, and address contributing factors identified in the AFH.
Before discussing fair housing issues in accordance with AB 686, the following provides a brief overview
of the development history of the community that shaped the context for this assessment.
2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, California Department of
Housing and Community Development (April 2021 Update)
83
History of Development
Eight years prior to its incorporation, the town of Moorpark was established in 1900 between two
agricultural communities: Fremontville, to the southwest, and Epworth, to the northwest. When the
Southern Pacific Railroad announced plans to relocate its Coast Line route from Los Angeles to San
Francisco by way of Chatsworth, through the Santa Susana Mountains, and on to Ventura, land
speculation ensued. Robert W. Poindexter gave the Southern Pacific Railroad an easement through his
property to allow the route. Poindexter and his wife, Madeline, surveyed the area and laid out the town
site in 1900. Trains soon followed and a postal office was established.
For most of the 20th century, and harkening to its past history, agriculture was the predominant industry
in Moorpark. Throughout the first half of the century, Moorpark was known for its dry land farming for
apricots. Its extensive apricot production endowed Moorpark with the title "Apricot Capital of the World."
As irrigation techniques improved, however, walnuts and citrus became the major crops, the vestiges of
which can be found in the namesake of parks and developments in the city. After World War II, the poultry
industry became big business, with turkey, chicken, and egg ranches in the city. The town also became
home to “Egg City,” a 200-acre and 3.5-million chicken farm that was the largest in the world.
The town’s shops and businesses, small homes, and a school grew around the railroad depot, eventually
establishing Moorpark’s downtown. The town’s race/ethnicity was predominantly White and Hispanic.
Prior to World War II, the town was largely segregated. The town’s Hispanic population was concentrated
in the Charles Street District, with the railroad tracks serving as a physical barrier dividing Hispanic and
White populations. On either side of the tracks, Whites and Hispanics had their own businesses,
segregated schools, and cultural celebrations. Hispanic residents living “out of town” established Virginia
Colony between the railroad tracks and the Arroyo Simi where land prices were more affordable.
Through the mid-1900s, Moorpark remained a very small town of less than 4,000 persons. Beginning in
the early 1980s, the county approved large subdivisions, beginning with Peach Hill and Mountain
Meadows, replacing former agricultural fields. Over the next decade, Moorpark’s population increased
more than 500% as new residential subdivisions attracted families (primarily White) from the San
Fernando Valley. By 1990, Whites made up 70% of Moorpark’s total population of 25,494 and the Hispanic
population made up 20%. As White families populated Moorpark’s new suburban development, Hispanic
residents remained the majority in the older downtown and Virginia Colony neighborhoods.
The 1990s and 2000s saw the development and completion of several larger specific plans (e.g., Carlsberg
and Highlands) over former agricultural land. In 1998, Moorpark also adopted the Downtown Specific
Plan that encompasses the downtown area and the City’s oldest neighborhoods along and surrounding
Moorpark Avenue and High Street, which envisions transforming downtown into a vibrant commercial
and residential destination in the heart of the City. Ten large residential developments are planned for
the upcoming decade. Looking forward, the City is undertaking a comprehensive General Plan update
that will fundamentally shape community development priorities through the buildout of Moorpark.
84
To assess patterns of segregation and integration, this section contains an analysis of four characteristics:
race and ethnicity, income, familial status, and population with a disability according to the American
Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019. Where data is available, updated 2020 census data is provided.
Integration, Segregation, and Disproportionate Need
Race and Ethnicity
Moorpark’s history has followed a less typical pattern of demographic change. Prior to incorporation,
Moorpark was largely an agricultural town; the city had 4,000 residents and 54% were Hispanic, primarily
residing in the downtown. Following incorporation, Moorpark entered a significant period of growth with
the development of larger residential subdivisions, attracting residents from nearby San Fernando Valley.
Within less than a decade, Whites were the majority, comprising 70%, while Hispanics made up 22% of
the population. Since then, and consistent with regional trends, Moorpark’s population has diversified. As
of the 2020 Census, White residents comprise 50%, Hispanics 33%, and Asians 11% of the population.
Today, Moorpark generally features a mixed Hispanic-White or Hispanic-White-Asian mix. The city
continues to see a greater level of diversification in its population (Figure 4-7). However, the racial/ethnic
mix in neighborhoods still show patterns of concentrations. Newer residential developments in north and
south Moorpark have the highest concentration of Whites and Asians (see Table 4-26). However,
Hispanics comprise the majority of residents in central Moorpark, the Downtown and Virginia Colony. The
College Neighborhood shows the highest diversity of racial and ethnic groups. Of particular note, the
Asian population has significantly increased in northern Moorpark in the past decade.
Table 4-26 Predominant Population by Neighborhood
General Neighborhood
Percentage
White
Percentage
Hispanic
Percentage
Asian Majority Race-Ethnic
Championship-Gabbert-Hitch 49% 25% 18% White-Hispanic-Asian
Moorpark Highlands 48% 32% 12% White-Hispanic-Asian
College 52% 33% 8% White-Hispanic-Asian
Downtown/LA Avenue north 12% 80% 5% White-Hispanic
Downtown/LA Avenue south 42% 41% 8% White-Hispanic
Virginia Colony 46% 45% 3% White-Hispanic
Mountain View 65% 19% 8% White-Hispanic
Peach Hill 66% 18% 8% White-Hispanic
Carlsberg 67% 12% 12% White-Hispanic-Asian
Sources: University of California, Neighborhood Index, figures updated for 2020 U.S. Census
Note: Highlighted race and ethnicity denotes predominant group in the neighborhood
85
Household Income
Moorpark is one of the most wealthy communities in Ventura; its median household income of $107,000
is second only to Thousand Oaks and is 125% of the county household median income of $88,000. As is
the case countywide, income levels vary among different groups depending on age, education, and race.
Moorpark’s White population earns a median income of about $108,000–nearly identical to the citywide
median. Hispanics earn a median income of $82,000, which is 18% below the citywide median. Asians
earn the highest median income of $132,000, which is 23% of the citywide median income.
As shown in Figure 4-8, Moorpark neighborhoods can be grouped into three econonomic levels:
• Highest Income. Moorpark neighborhoods north of downtown (Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch,
and Highlands) and in southern Moorpark (Mountain Meadows, Peach Hill, and Carlsberg) are
associated with highly positive economic outcomes. These neighborhoods offer predominantly
detached single-family homes and, in some limited areas, attached ownership products. Several of the
neighborhoods have median household incomes exceeding $150,000–$180,000, but the population is
still diverse and does not exclusively feature one race and ethnic group. These areas score similar to
high resource cities in the east county, including Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.
• Moderate-income. The College neighborhood in northeast Moorpark is associated with more
moderate-high economic outcomes, and the median household income ranges from $97,000 to
$118,000. This income level is considered within the moderate-income range for a four-person
household based upon regional median incomes calculated by the State of California. The
neighborhood includes a diversity of housing opportunities–single-family homes, condominiums, and
townhomes–at prices that are generally affordable to more moderate-income households. The race
and ethnicity of residents in these areas is generally a mix of Whites and Hispanics.
• Lower Incomes. Like many communities across Ventura County, Moorpark has several areas with
lower incomes that show the lowest economic outcomes. In the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-
Downtown neighborhood and Virginia Colony, the median household income is generally less than
$72,000, which is considered low-income according to the State of California. In these areas, it is not
uncommon for 40% to 60% of residents to be lower income. As noted, these areas features small-lot
single-family homes, attached products, and apartments. Demographically, the population is
predominantly and disproportionately Hispanic compared to other neighborhoods.
Comparatively, Ventura County as a whole has block groups that are either predominantly White or
Hispanic, typically coinciding with the county’s high- and low-resource areas, respectively. The eastern
part of the county, inclusive of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Camarillo, is predominantly White. Cities
with a substantial agricultural base (e.g., Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Filmore) have a predominantly Hispanic
population, and are largely designated as low- and moderate-resource areas. The same finding applies
to the unincorporated county along Highway 126 and southeast of Oxnard, which features both a
predominantly Hispanic population and an agricultural base industry.
86
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence
The AFH must analyze the distribution of household income across the community, with particular
attention to how it correlates with different race and ethnic groups. The purpose is to identify areas of
racial/ethnic concentrated areas of poverty or affluence that may suggest fair housing concerns.
The countywide population distribution shows a general trend of areas with predominantly White
populations coinciding with high or highest resource areas, suggesting the County’s White population
may have the highest access to positive outcomes in terms of health, economic, and educational
attainment. The general trend for the County’s Hispanic population suggests the opposite, as areas with
predominantly Hispanic populations coincide with moderate- or low-resource areas, which may lead to
only somewhat positive outcomes (moderate-resource areas) or negative outcomes (low-resource areas)
in terms of health, educational, and economic attainment. In areas of poverty, lack of access to
educational and economic opportunity may perpetuate poverty, which can disproportionately impact
communities of color more likely to live in areas of poverty, as seen in Ventura County.
Areas of Poverty
Moorpark does not contain any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). A R/ECAP
is a federal designation developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that is
applied to areas in which 50% or more of the population identifies as non-White and 40% or more of the
residents are living in poverty. While the northern portion of the Losa Angeles Avenue
Cooridor/Downtown ia approximately 80% Hispanic, the prevalence of poverty is less than 10%.
Therefore, these areas are not considered R/ECAPs. In Ventura County, a limited number of R/ECAPs are
present in both the cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula, all coinciding with low resource -designated areas
and predominantly Hispanic population. At least 50% of households in the R/ECAPs are renter-occupied
and in Santa Paula, the R/ECAP correlates with the highest use of housing choice vouchers.
Areas of Affluence
Racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs), while not formally defined, signify the opposite of
R/ECAPs; that is, areas largely exclusive to non-Hispanic White households who earn the highest incomes.
For this analysis, a RCAA refers to an area made up of at least 80% White households earning a median
income exceeding 150% ($148,200) of the 2021 HCD median income for Ventura County since Ventura
County’s median income trend is 150% higher than the statewide median. Moorpark’s neighborhoods
south of the Arroyo (Mountain Meadows, Peach Hill, Carlsberg) are made up of predominantly White
residents (70%) earning a household median income of $150,000–$185,000. The south side of Thousand
Oaks features comparable median incomes with a majority White population (60% to 80%), with
neighborhoods that could be considered RCAAs. Surrounding Ventura County, most areas that could be
considered RCAAs are in coastal communities, such as Malibu in Los Angeles County.
Familial Status
As shown in Table 4-3 of the Housing Needs Assessment, Moorpark is a family-oriented community, with
family households representing 82% of all households in the city. Due to an increase in senior households
87
over the past several decades, family households are largely married with no children (40% of family
households). Family households that are married with children represent about 30% of family households
and all other family households represent 12%. Nonfamily households represent an additional 18% of
total households. The high presence of married couple families and the prospect of dual-income
households likely correlates with the high price of housing.
Countywide, Moorpark’s family composition is similar to Ventura County as a whole, whereby married
families with children account for approximately 30% to 35% of total households in each community,
except for the city of Ventura. Howevever, there is a larger share of single-person households in the
county. Figure 4-9 shows that of Moorpark households with children, at least 80% of those households
have married parents in nearly all areas of the city, including all areas designated as highest resource. In
contrast, the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown show a slightly lower percentage of households
with married couples with children (60%–80%). But even then, the differences are not appreciable.
Single-parent households with children represent a relatively small proportion of family households with
children citywide (only 6%), which is half the county average and the lowest figure of any city in the
county. This is likely due to the high cost of housing and limited number of apartment units. While there
are variations throughout the community, with slightly higher variations in central Moorpark. This is likely
because of the predominance of apartment rentals, which would likely be the most attainable type of
housing for single-parent households. Still, the percentages of single-parent families shown do not reveal
a disproportionate concentration compared to other communities in the broader region.
The Ruben Castro Center (RCC) is the main provider of
services to lower-income families and individuals. RCC is a
non-profit community-based organization committed to
eliminating generational poverty by fostering relationships,
education, and agency coordination. Every week, two food
pantries in Moorpark operated by Ruben Castro Charities
serve approximately 610 individuals—including 160 children,
336 adults, and 114 seniors. RCC operates from two locations
in the community–in Downtown Moorpark and near
Moorpark College. First 5 and other organizations also
operate out of the RCC Human Services Center, providing a
wide range of services to residents of Moorpark.
88
Population with Disability
Moorpark has a relatively small population of
persons living with a disability, about 9.6%, or 3,493
residents, have a disability (ACS 2015-2019). Figure
4-10 shows that certain areas have a slightly higher
concentration of persons with a disability (between
10% and 15%). Countywide, the population with a
disability represents a small percentage, with most
cities similarly reflecting Moorpark (persons with
disabilities comprising either less than 10% of the
population, with some census tracts with a slightly
more concentrated population, up to 20%). Camarillo
and Ventura are the only cities with a census tract
where 20–30% of residents has a disability, with the
former largely attributable to its aging population.
Though the prevalence of disabled individuals is relatively modest, community stakeholders indicated
that there is a shortage of housing for people with disabilities in Moorpark as well as countywide. The
Vintage Crest Senior Apartments and the Tafoya Terrace are the only two subsidized apartments with
units accessible to people with disabilities. As of 2020, the Housing Authority reported 10 disabled
persons lived in the Tafoya Terrace apartments and an additional 31 Moorpark residents with disabilities
lived in housing with Section 8 assistance. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 requires that all
apartment properties built after 1991 have certain design features that make them readily adaptable for
disabled residents, but the apartments themselves may not be accessible at this time.
Ccommunity stakeholders indicated the need for residential group homes. While the Municipal Code
allows residential care facilities in accordance with state law, none are in the city. Part of the reason for
the lack of residential care facilities is the expense of buying a single-family home. Second, most care
facility operators depend on a mix of community day programs or services. Day care operators generally
locate in larger communities where a greater population of people with disabilities live and can access
such services via transit. Moorpark does not have a large enough population base of disabled residents
to attract a nexus of community day service providers.
Residential projects serving people with disabilities are in the pipeline. The 77-unit Oakmont Senior Living
project, a market-rate housing project for seniors with age-related memory disabilities, is under
construction. The 360-unit Aldersgate continuing care retirement community is also in the planning and
approval stage. The City is a;sp proposing to revise its municipal codes regarding the permitting of
residential care facilities and review its reasonable accommodation provisions to accelerate the frequency
of its use. The City continues to implement its Transition Plan and make improvements to its facilities,
infrastructure, and services to facilitate use by people with disabilities.
Oakmont Assisted Living, under construction.
89
Disproportionate Needs and Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
Moorpark’s rate of overcrowding is one of the lowest countywide; only 2% of homeowners and 6% of
renters live in overcrowded situations. In comparison, overcrowding rates are comparatively low to
Ventura County as a whole, where 3% of owners and 12% of renters lived in overcrowded housing.
However, overcrowding in Moorpark is disproportionately concentrated in the Los Angeles Avenue
Corridor-Downtown. Within the northern portion, 25% of households experience overcrowding (Figure
4-11). The prevalence of housing overcrowding in this subarea exceeds the overcrowding seen in other
east county cities, including Simi Valley, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks, and is reflective of the rate of
overcrowding experienced in Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Ventura.
The northern portion of the the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown is the City’s oldest
neighborhood, with a mix of older single-family homes that are smaller in size and moderately priced.
The area is predominantly Hispani, and earns a median income that is 75% of the citywide median. So,
while the area provides the most affordable housing in Moorpark, the high rate of overcrowding suggests
that appropriately sized housing may not be affordable to residents. The City has facilitated the
development of affordable housing nearby, including ownership units, that are three- and four-bedroom
units and can readily accommodate larger families. Income-restricted housing secured through the City’s
negotiated inclusionary housing program allows lower-income households to afford housing.
Overpayment
Because of the price of housing, Moorpark’s rate of housing overpayment is also high. For Moorpark
households, 30% of owners and 65% of renters overpay for housing (Table 4-12). The high prevalence of
renter overpayment is due to a shortage in apartment units, low vacancy rates, and high rents–all which
increase the risk of displacement. In comparison, Ventura County also has some of the highest housing
prices in southern California and, as a result, 32% of homeowners and 55% of renters countywide also
overpay for housing. As shown in Figure 4-12, rental housing overpayment is prevalent countywide; all
cities show at least 20% of renting households experience overpayment and all cities have tracts where
at least 60% of renting households experience overpayment.
Within Moorpark, the supply of rental units is a key issue that affects housing overpayment. The City has
only eight apartment properties, all located in the greater Downtown. Four properties provide deed-
restricted affordable units. Of the four market-rate properties, three are Class A properties with a high
level of amenities and high rents. In the Downtown, more than 6 in 10 renting households overpay for
housing. To address this need and as highlighted in the discussion of the 2021-2029 RHNA, the Housing
Plan proposes the development of hundreds of apartments near this area of Moorpark. One such example
is the 200-unit Essex property, which just was approved for a low-income housing tax credit. The Housing
Plan also provides a program to publicize the County housing choice voucher program. These efforts help
address the limited supply of affordable rental properties in Moorpark.
90
Housing Conditions
Housing in Ventura County was predominantly built between 1970 and 1979, comprising 23% of the
county’s total housing stock. This predates Moorpark’s most significant period of housing development
by a decade, with 47% of Moorpark’s housing stock built between 1980 and 1989 (Table 4-8). Typically,
homes 30 to 50 years of age need repair and rehabilitation. Moorpark’s housing stock is generally in good
condition, but there are pockets, as discussed below, that require maintenance and rehabilitation during
the upcoming planning period. According to the 2020 Ventura County Regional Analysis of Impediments,
“Ojai, Santa Paula, and the City of San Buenaventura have the largest proportions of housing units
potentially in need of rehabilitation,” notably west Ventura County cities. Conversely, the east Ventura
County cities of Moorpark, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks have the lowest rates of substandard housing.
As discussed in Section 4.2, housing stock greater than 50 years old is more likely to require substantial
repairs or need renovation to meet current building codes. In Moorpark, housing exceeding 50 years of
age is located in the city’s original neighborhoods in Downtown and Virginia Colony. These
neighborhoods are historically Hispanic and continue to have a higher concentration of Hispanic
population than the rest of the city, also coinciding with lower median incomes. In the downtown north
of SR-118, housing conditions may be exacerbated by high rates of overcrowding. Villa Campesina, a 62-
unit tract originally constructed as farmworker housing in 1989 and located in the southern portion of
the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor has increasing need for housing and roadway maintenance.
Homeless People
The 2020 Ventura County Continuum of Care Alliance PiTC identified 1,743 homeless people countywide
on their one-day census count, but did not report any persons experiencing homelessness in Moorpark.
Other data sources find that Moorpark residents are experiencing homelessness or are precariously
housed. Approximately 5 to 15 students in Moorpark schools were reported as living in shared housing,
a hotel or motel, a temporary shelter, or unsheltered. Moorpark College staff indicate that up to 49% of
college students experience housing insecurity (e.g., couch surfing, etc.) housed at some point during the
college year. Ventura County’s Homeless Management Information System reported 43 households at
risk of homelessness and 27 literally homeless households in Moorpark.
Stakeholders and local homeless service providers echoed the underrepresentation of persons and
families experiencing homelessness in Moorpark. Stakeholders identified the need to provide more
housing opportunities for extremely low-income households and precariously-housed households to
prevent possible displacement. The Housing Plan proposes a more affirmative program to: (1) review and
revise existing municipal land use ordinances affecting housing for homeless people; (2) support a more
robust homeless count to better understand the needs of this group; (3) and implement the
memorandum of understanding with the County’s Pathways to Home program.
Community resources – their quantity, quality, and distribution – are known to affect opportunity for
residents in a community. In some cases, the affect may be direct and immediate, such as an
91
environmental hazard. In other cases, the effect may be long-term, such as the quality of education. As
such, the California Government Code §65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local governments to undertake an
assessment of opportunities and resources available to a community as part of the AFH.
To assist in that effort, the State of California has developed maps of access to community resources,
such as job opportunities, schools, safe and clean neighborhoods, and other indicators to understand
communities and provide evidence for making policies that can advance community objectives. This effort
has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is recommended for all jurisdictions. Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC)/HCD divides the state into regions and then develops scores for communities along
their environmental, economic, and educational resources based on their relative standing in a region.
Moorpark falls in the Central Coast region, which extends 300 miles north to Santa Cruz County.
While the methodology and scoring has multiple levels and dimensions, the TCAC/HCD scorecard ranks
communities into three general categories, with different subcategories for more nuanced scoring:
• High(est) Resource: This category applies to the top 40% of highest-scoring census tracts. The highest
resource categories, which include the top 20%, include Thousand Oaks and Ojai. In these areas,
residents have access to highly positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and
education attainment. Moorpark is designated as having “High(est) Resource.”
• Moderate Resource: This category includes the next 30% of census tracts in the region. In Ventura
County, Camarillo and Simi Valley include significant areas designated as “moderate resource.”
Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) is a filter applied to census tracts based on index scores just
below the High Resource threshold but experiencing rapid increases in key dimensions.
• Low Resource: This includes the bottom 30% of remaining census tracts in the region. Cities in Ventura
County that are largely designated as “low resource” include Oxnard and Santa Paula. This category is
indicative of areas that may have limited access to positive environmental, economic, and education
factors resulting in negative or perpetuated outcomes (e.g., poverty).
As shown in Figure 4-14, the majority of Moorpark is designated in the high to highest resource areas,
exemplified by access to educational, employment, environmental, and other resources that lead to
positive economic, social, and health outcomes. The primary areas of concern are the older portions of
the broader downtown and Virginia Colony. These older neighborhoods have the greatest infrastructure,
economic, and social needs compared to surrounding newer neighborhoods.
The following discussion provides an assessment of the type and distribution of opportunities in the
community (economic, environmental, transit, etc.) and its implications for different neighborhoods.
Educational Opportunities
The Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) serves the entirety of the City of Moorpark, in addition to
areas of unincorporated Ventura County surrounding Moorpark along SR-23 and SR-118. Moorpark
Unified has 12 schools in the district, which include 5 elementary schools, a K-8 school, 2 middle schools,
a high school, a “middle college” (high school-college dual enrollment program), a home independent
92
study program, and an adult education program. As shown in Figure 4-15, the entirety of Moorpark
features positive to highly positive outcomes for educational attainment, based on fourth-grade reading
and math scores, high school graduation rate, and student poverty.
When compared to Ventura County as a whole, Moorpark stands out as having access to positive
outcomes for educational attainment. Camarillo is the only other city that features similar access to
positive outcomes for educational attainment citywide. The other east county cities (Simi Valley and
Thousand Oaks) show disparities in access to educational attainment, with place of residency determining
whether students have access to positive or negative outcomes for educational attainment. In the western
county, the cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Fillmore uniformly feature poor access to positive
educational outcomes, coinciding with the county’s predominantly low- and moderate-resource areas.
Poverty, housing instability, and food security, among other factors, can in turn affect school performance.
Each year, the California Department of Education publishes performance metrics for each school,
including student assessment results for English Language Arts (ELA) and Math as they compare to the
state on meeting grade-level standards. Reporting of educational indicators was suspended in 2020 due
to the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, 2019 is the most recent data available. In 2019, 38% of MUSD
students qualified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, measured by the number of students eligible for
free or reduced-priced meals or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.
A majority of Moorpark’s socially disadvantaged students fell below the grade-level standard for ELA
(55%) and math (55%) and had higher rates of chronic absenteeism (10%) than other student population
groups, including English Learners (7%) and White students (7%). Improving housing stability for lower-
income families with children, particularly extremely low-income households, may support academic
performance for socially disadvantaged students and increase access to positive outcomes for
educational attainment overall. Moorpark’s Housing Plan can help further housing security by providing
a significant number of deed restricted affordable housing for lower income households.
Moorpark residents have steadfastly supported local bond measures to improve public schools. In 2002,
voters passed Measure R for $33 million. In 2008, voters approved Measure S, a second bond issuance of
$39.5 million. Priorities for this bond were split between 21st century technology in classrooms, remodel
and upgrades at Moorpark High School, and maintenance projects throughout MUSD. A Citizens Bond
Oversight Committee was established to monitor expenditures, progress, and annual financial and
performance audits. MUSD also prepares an annual Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) that
sets aside additional funding to target at-risk and lower-performing students districtwide.
Economic Opportunity
Moorpark is known for strong economic opportunity. According to TCAC/HCD maps, economic
opportunity reflects not just proximity to jobs, but the prevalance of poverty, (un)employment rates, and
educational levels. The city does have access to local and regional jobs, as shown in Figure 4-16, and most
residential neighborhoods across the city are associated with the highest economic tiers and highly
positive economic outcomes, indicating these neighborhoods have few barriers to economic mobility.
93
The only exceptions to this pattern are the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor/Downtown and College
neighborhoods, but for different reasons than job proximity.
• Household Poverty. Poverty is a key indicator of economic opportunity. Citywide, the poverty rate is
very low, at only 4.4%. Within Moorpark, the number of individuals living in poverty ranges from 1%
to 4% per census tract. The main concentrations of poverty are in the downtown neighborhoods, where
the poverty rate ranges from 5% to 11%, or within the eastern portion of Moorpark College
neighborhood where the poverty rate stands at approximately 6%. Again, though, the overall poverty
rate is low in Moorpark, particularly in relation to the county as a whole.
• Employment. Moorpark is known for a low unemployment rate of 4%; however, it ranges between
1% to 9% in neighborhoods according to the 2015-2019 ACS. Moorpark’s unemployment rate is below
the 5% countywide rate, and one of the lowest behind Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks, but
better than Oxnard and Ojai, which exceeds 6%. In downtown, the unemployment rate ranged from
5.0–6.8%, but exceeded 9.0% in the Villa Del Arroyo and Virginia Colony areas. It should be noted that
unemployment figures at the neighborhood level do not take into account the COVID pandemic.
• Education. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Moorpark residents 25 years and older are well educated
– approximately 45% have a bachelor’s or higher degree–the second-highest rate in the county behind
Thousand Oaks (51%) and higher than the county (33%). The prevlance of residents with bachelor’s
degrees in comparison cities include 42% for Camarillo, 36% for Ventura, and 34% for Simi Valley. At
the other end, a small share of Moorpark’s residents do not have a high school diploma or equivalency
(9%), behind Thousand Oaks (6%), Camarillo (7%), and Simi Valley (8%). However, the lack of a high
school diploma/equivalency is highest in Downtown (35%) and Virginia Colony.
• Employment Access. Moorpark has a smaller employment base due to the size of the community as
most employees commute to other cities in the region for work; nearly 9 of every 10 workers
commutes, which is typical for a suburban community. The average commuting time is just under 30
minutes. According to HUD’s job proximity index, much of the city is located within a reasonable
distance to job centers, with the exception of southern Moorpark. While of note, the proximity of
employment access, when overlaid onto TCAC’s economic score map, does not align well, suggesting
that job proximity may not be a significant determinant of economic opportunity in Moorpark.
Transportation
Public transportation options in the city are varied and include rail, local fixed-route bus, county intercity
express bus, paratransit, and dial-a-ride services. The Moorpark train station along High Street within the
Downtown area is served by both Metrolink’s Ventura County Line and Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner. The
station has 270 free parking spaces, charging stations, and bicycle parking. Metrolink has approximately
200 boardings and alightings (200 round trips) per weekday, particularly frequented by commuters.
Amtrak has approximately 50 combined boardings and alightings per day.
The City of Moorpark’s local transit service is called “Moorpark Transit.” The City began financing its bus
service in January 1989 with the 1/4-cent sales tax authorized by the Transportation Development Act.
94
Moorpark Transit is a fixed-route bus service that operates weekdays between 6:15 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Two routes are provided and are similar in the destinations served. Both routes run along the major
roadways in the city–Los Angeles Avenue, Tierra Rejada Road, Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, etc. The
routes serve destinations such as City Hall, the Metrolink/Amtrak station, Moorpark College, shopping
centers along Los Angeles Avenue, schools, and parks and recreational facilities.
Countywide intercity express bus service is provided by Ventura County Transportation Commission
(VCTC) Transit’s East County and Cross County Limited Services. East County lines use SR-23 and SR-118
to provide service south to Thousand Oaks and east to Simi Valley, and the Cross County Limited uses
SR-118 to provide service east to Simi Valley and west to Somis, with further service provided to Camarillo,
Oxnard, and Ventura via SR-34 and US-101. For both lines, stops in the city include Moorpark Station, the
industrial district along Princeton Avenue (East County only), and Moorpark College. Both routes also
intersect with other VCTC bus routes, linking Ventura County and the San Fernando Valley.
Local paratransit that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is available in the form of
a dial-a-ride system to persons with disabilities who are certified by the City and VCTC. Travel within the
city is available from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday service is available from 8:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. Intercity paratransit to other Ventura County cities and connections to Gold Coast Transit
and LA Access are available during the same time frame. Additional dial-a-ride services in the city are
available for seniors aged 65 and over, with nearly identical service to paratransit, except without a
connection to LA Access. Hours of operation are the same as other paratransit services.
Transit accessibility has been a long-term issue for the county and individual communities that wish to
expand transit options. To that end, the City recently approved the start of a Pilot Mobility On Demand
Rideshare Program. The goal of the Pilot project is to explore the feasibility of replacing portions of the
city’s fixed-route bus service with a general dial-a-ride service. The intent of the rideshare program is to
provide more efficient service to the city’s residents at a reduced cost. Vehicles with a capacity of 8 to 12
passengers would pick up and drop off at designated “virtual stops” throughout the city. The service is
anticipated to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Environmental Health and Safety
Access to healthful environmental conditions is known to impact the health of residents. Among others,
these conditions could be environmental (e.g., pollution or lack thereof), socioeconomic factors (e.g.,
resident health, education, income levels), or other factors. The State of California’s CalEnviroScreen tool
is often used to identify these environmental, health, and socioeconomic conditions and compare a
community’s “score” to cities statewide. A census tract with a score in the 75th percentile or above is
considered a disadvantaged community. Ventura County’s disadvantaged communities are primarily
located along Highway 126, corresponding with areas of high agricultural use, where poor environmental
conditions are likely due to pesticide use, impaired water quality, and traffic or in areas with existing or
prior industrial uses (Figure 4-17). To the east, the San Fernando Valley (from which many residents of
Moorpark migrated from) is also known for its heavy industrial uses and disadvantaged status.
95
Moorpark enjoys healthful environmental conditions in most neighborhoods; none score high (poor)
enough to be considered a disadvantaged community according to CalEnviroScreen. However, the Los
Angeles Avenue-Corridor-Downtown neighborhoods have the highest levels of pollution and poor
socioeconomic conditions. These neighborhoods are the oldest in the city, constructed in Moorpark’s
limited flatlands along the Arroyo Simi and bounded by significant hillsides that characterize northern
and southern Moorpark. These areas are subject to poorer housing conditions (e.g., overcrowding, lead
paint, etc.), pesticides from adjacent fields, impaired water along the Arroyo, and hazards from legacy
industrial uses. Los Angeles Avenue, a major arterial and truck route frequented by 1,000 trucks daily,
contributes to localized poor air quality. Socioeconomic conditions (e.g., low-income, overcrowding, low
educational attainment, linguistic isolation, and other conditions) are prevalent.
All of Moorpark is prone to significant hazards related to fire, flooding, and fault lines, posing ri sk to
existing and future residential projects. The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony
neighborhoods were developed in the city’s limited flat area, which has since been designated as a Special
Flood Hazard Area. As discussed, the majority of proposed units to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA
will be built in the southern portion of the Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch neighborhood area, which
falls outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area, but is within a very high fire hazard severity zone. The City’s
building and planning departments require that residential projects be designed and built in accordance
with building and development standards required by state and local code to mitigate these hazards.
While the city does not have “disadvantaged communities” based on state-defined models,
environmental conditions have a disproportionate impact on different neighborhoods. The Los Angeles
Avenue Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony are most affected by both these underlying conditions.
The City is undertaking the first comprehensive update to its General Plan in more than 30 years. As part
of that effort, the General Plan will include a revised Safety Element, including safety and environmental
justice policies, that will be designed to address the underlying environmental, social, and safety
conditions that affect the quality of life in these two neighborhoods.
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
The City enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulation through a twofold
process: review of local policies and code for compliance with state law and the referral of fair housing
complaints for investigation and resolution by the regional fair housing provider.
Review of Local Policies
The City reviewed its zoning regulations as part of preparation of the 2020 Ventura County Regional AI
to ensure compliance with fair housing law, and will continue to regularly examine land use policies,
permitting practices, and building codes to comply with fair-housing laws. Periodic reviews of the zoning
regulations and policies confirm that, as the city grows and changes, it continues to ensure and enforce
that all persons have access to sound and affordable housing. Regular reviews of policies and practices
ensure that all persons have access to sound and affordable housing to the extent that such housing is
available. The Housing Element will ensure compliance with fair housing law through the following:
96
» Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915 et. seq.). Although the City has a density bonus
ordinance, it has not been updated since 2017. The City will amend its density bonus program in
accordance with AB 2753, 2372, 1763, 1227, and 2345 that were passed between 2018 and 2020.
» No-Net-Loss (Government Code §65863). The City, through its General Plan update, will designate
sufficient land to maintain adequate sites at all times during the planning period commensurate
with its assigned RHNA and will periodically review its land inventory to ensure site availability.
» Housing Accountability Act (Government Code, §65589.5). The City will not disapprove, or condition
approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low-, low-, or
moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless specified written findings are made.
» Objective Development and Design Standards (Government Code §65913.4). The City will draft and
adopt objective development and design standards that can improve certainty for the development
community regarding the design of residential and mixed-use projects.
» Homeless Accommodations. The City will revise its codes for emergency shelters, transitional
housing, supportive housing, and will amend its codes to allow for low-barrier navigation centers
as a by-right land use in accordance with Government Code §65582, §65583, and §65660 et. seq.
» Farmworker and Employee Housing. The City will revise its zoning codes to allow for farmworker
housing, agricultural housing, and employee housing as a by-right residential use in accordance
with §17021.5 and §17021.6 of the Health and Safety Code.
» Application Processing (Government Code §65589.5). The City will rely on regulations set forth in
state law for processing preliminary application for housing development projects, conducting no
more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective General Plan and
development standards, and making a decision on a project within 90 days after certification of an
EIR or 60 days after adoption of an MND or an EIR for affordable housing projects.
Fair Housing Compliance
The City complies with fair housing law regarding complaints by referring inquiries to the Housing Rights
Center (HRC), HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), and the California Department
of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). HRC is a nonprofit fair housing service and civil rights
organization responsible for providing outreach, education, and case resolution services to Ventura
County, including Moorpark. The services are available in English, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean,
Armenian, and Russian. HRC hosts an annual countywide fair housing conference for fair housing
providers and advocates and organizes workshops for landowners, property managers, and others. HRC
advertises its venues in Spanish and English, using bilingual media outlets and social media platforms.
HRC also provides information on its website (https://www.housingrightscenter.org/), including rental
housing opportunities available for every community on a monthly basis.
Moorpark has a relatively modest caseload, due to the limited number of properties in the community.
During fiscal year 2020-2021, HRC served 13 Moorpark residents: 10 residents requested general housing
97
services and 3 residents brought forward discrimination inquiries. More than 90% of clients in Moorpark
were classified as earning extremely low-income and 38% had a disability. A majority of the clients were
in-place tenants (85%), as opposed to rental home-seekers. Of those seeking tenant/landlord services,
20% sought support with evictions and 30% sought general tenant/landlord information. HRC did not
provide the basis for discrimination for the three discrimination cases, but two cases received counseling
and one was referred to DFEH for further action.
HRC shared that the lack of affordable housing, particularly designed for accessibility for persons with
disabilities and seniors, is a significant barrier to Moorpark residents securing affordable housing. Due to
this shortage, persons with disabilities and seniors are more likely to live in housing that is not modified
with accessibility equipment. HRC shared that a significant number of cases countywide are related to
reasonable accommodation, which can be difficult to receive approval. HRC identified that the lack of
education of housing rights for both tenants and landlords may contribute to low participation in HRC
housing services and discrimination inquiries. Providing informational material in Spanish and connecting
with local partners would help reach Hispanic communities. Of HRC’s clients from Moorpark, only one
client identified as Hispanic, despite Hispanics comprising 32% of Moorpark’s population.
As part of the Fair Housing Assessment Program (FHAP), the California DFEH dual-files fair housing cases
with HUD’s Region IX FHEO. FHAP reported only two fair housing discrimination in Moorpark from
January 1, 2013, through April 27, 2021, an eight-year period. The first complaint was filed in 2017 by the
DFEH against a Moorpark landlord alleged discrimination because of marital and familial status and sexual
orientation, as evidenced by the language used to advertise an available rental unit. A civil complaint was
filed in Ventura County Superior Court and the case was settled in March 2019, with the landlord required
to pay damages and fees, participate in mandatory fair housing training, and submit periodic compliance
reports. The second complaint alleged refusal to rent/negotiate for rental and failure to make reasonable
accommodation. This case was closed due to a no cause determination.
This page intentionally left blank.
98
Figure 4-7 Moorpark, Predominant Race-Ethnic Groups
99
Figure 4-8 Moorpark, Median Household Income by Census Block Group
100
Figure 4-9 Moorpark, Prevalence of Children in Married Family Couples
101
Figure 4-10 Moorpark, Prevalence of People with a Disability
102
Figure 4-11 Moorpark, Prevalence of Overcrowding
103
Figure 4-12 Moorpark, Prevalence of Renter Overpayment
104
Figure 4-13 Moorpark, Prevalence of Homeowner Overpayment
105
Figure 4-14 Moorpark, Opportunity Resources, Composite
106
Figure 4-15 Moorpark, Educational Resources
107
Figure 4-16 Moorpark, Economic Resources
108
Figure 4-17 Moorpark, Environmental Conditions
109
This page intentionally left blank
110
Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates, and preparation of the community
needs assessment, the City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Moorpark. A
contributing factor is one that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or
more fair housing issues. A fair housing issue is a condition in a program or geographic area that restricts
fair housing choice or access to opportunity, and includes such conditions as ongoing segregation or lack
of integration, R/ECAPS, significant disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs,
and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.
The City also identified programs and actions to significantly address disparities in housing needs and
access to opportunity. Moorpark’s approach to addressing fair housing issues fall within the following
general strategies: (1) altering existing city land use and housing regulatory policy; (2) implementing
specific mobility strategies that promote inclusion for protected classes; (3) encouraging development of
new affordable housing in high-resource areas; (4) implementing place-based strategies to encourage
community revitalization; and (5) protecting existing residents from displacement.
Issue 1: Limited Housing Opportunities
Moorpark’s suburbanization has resulted in the predominance of single-family homes, which account for
73% of all homes--the second-highest share of all Ventura County cities. The city has only eight apartment
properties offering 1,132 housing units or 10% of the city’s stock. This is directly related to the lack of
land zoned at appropriate densities for multiple-family residential and the requirements for discretionary
legislative decisions. As discussed in the Constraints section, development of higher-density housing
types is inhibited by zoning, density limits, and development standards imposed on higher-density
housing types, in addition to the discretionary RPD process. The development community echoed these
concerns during consultations, reiterating that discretionary permitting leads to lengthy delays. Proactive
strategies are needed to rebalance the current type, price, and affordability of housing in the city and
address the City Council’s strategic goal to create housing opportunities for all.
Specific meaningful actions include:
» Redesignation of land with appropriate densities that accommodate a range in types, tenures, and
prices of housing.
» Retooling of the zoning code and regulatory processes that have cumulatively constrained
development.
» Reexamination of land development and housing fees that individually or cumulatively may
constrain housing production.
» Offering regulatory concessions and financial assistance, as feasible, to allow for more creative use
of land and production of different type of housing.
111
Issue 2: Neighborhoods Requiring Investment
Although Moorpark incorporated in 1983, its founding
dates back to 1900, more than a century ago. Portions of
the Downtown and Virginia Colony developed soon after
during the early–mid 20th century. These two areas
today have a disproportionate concentration of low-
income and minority population, greater need for
housing rehabilitation, older infrastructure, greater levels
of overcrowding and overpayment, and social
conditions. When the County of Ventura approved major
residential subdivisions, developers made financial
investments to the new areas of the community. While
the City developed a Downtown Specific Plan in 1998 to
help revitalize that area, similar efforts are needed in
Virginia Colony.
Place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization involves approaches that are focused on
conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity, such as targeted investment in
neighborhood revitalization, preserving or rehabilitating existing affordable housing, and improving
infrastructure, parks, transportation, and other community amenities. The City has been active in recently
refurbishing the Virginia Colony Park and other community assets around the downtown.
Specific meaningful actions include:
» Implement the Downtown Specific Plan. Efforts include increasing the supply of affordable housing
through residential, multifamily, and mixed-use projects, and completing roadway, park, and other
improvements (including traffic-calming measures and circulation changes).
» Prioritize capital improvement projects. This effort will include working with neighborhood groups
and community-based organizations to conduct outreach to neighborhoods to identify priority
needs within each neighborhood.
» Continue to support, where feasible, local nonprofit organizations that provide educational, health,
social services, housing services, and other community support services to residents citywide and
especially in targeted neighborhoods that are predominantly lower income.
» Recruit residents from disadvantaged communities to serve on boards, committees, task forces, and
other local government decision-making bodies (e.g., Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Committee, and others). This will largely occur as a result of the redistricting process underway.
» Focus on infrastructure and public service programs that improve the safety of residents from
vehicle accidents, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, and higher crime rates.
Princeton Avenue will be prioritized for improvements
in the planning period.
112
Issue 3: Lack of Special-Needs Housing
The AFH, Community Profile, and stakeholder interviews emphasized the need for housing opportunities
for individuals and families with special housing needs. These included aging seniors and people with
disabilities, college students and faculty, homeless individuals, lower-income single-parent families, and
other need groups. As discussed in the Community Profile, the availability of suitable housing for many
of these groups does not exist in Moorpark and the breadth of services are limited, in part due to the
relatively smaller size of the city and its financial limitations. Nonetheless, the City recognizes a need to
address the needs of its special-needs groups in a more proactive manner.
Specific meaningful actions include:
» Adopt homeless housing initiative that seeks to document need, address regulatory barriers to
housing, and cooperate with the county through an MOU to assist homeless people.
» Adopt farmworker housing initiative that seeks to document need, address regulatory barriers to
housing, and cooperate with the county in addressing the needs of farmworkers.
» Adopt ahousing for all stages approach that addresses the needs of seniors and disabled people,
removes zoning code impediments, and seeks opportunities to develop housing for this group.
» Work with Moorpark College to support housing initiatives that address the need for affordable
housing for students and college faculty and staff.
Issue 4: Integration in High Resource Areas
Housing mobility strategies will help remove barriers to housing in areas of higher opportunity. For
Moorpark, highest opportunity areas include the Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch, Moorpark
Highlands, Mountain Meadows, Peach Hill, and Carlsberg. As discussed, most of these neighborhoods
have a majority White population and some of the highest median incomes across Ventura County. Some
of the neighborhoods still have opportunity sites for new housing, while others do not. Consultation with
HRC, the local fair housing provider, revealed that there are opportunities to improve housing mobility
for Moorpark residents, including lower-income residents, to access housing. T
Specific meaningful actions include:
» Develop and adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance to allow for the development of affordable
housing in new developments across Moorpark.
» Prepare affirmative and bilingual marketing materials, in Spanish and English, for new housing in
the Hitch Ranch subarea to promote greater access to affordable and market-rate housing.
» Partner with fair housing providers (such as HRC) to conduct landlord outreach and education on
source of income discrimination and voucher programs to expand participating voucher properties.
» Partner with fair housing providers and local community-based organizations that serve residents
in the Downtown and Virginia Colony neighborhoods to provide housing mobility counseling.
113
Issue 5: Protection from Displacement
Protecting low- and moderate-income residents from displacement is a key housing security strategy.
The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown neighborhood is particularly susceptible to displacement
due to the high proportion of renting households, overpayment, and overcrowding within these
neighborhoods. In the oldest portions of this neighborhood, 48% of single-family detached units are
occupied by renting households, while in the corridor south of Los Angeles Avenue, 57% of all housing
units are rented. For the city as a whole, housing units occupied by renting households comprise only
23% of total units and only 14% of single-family detached housing is rented.
Specific meaningful actions include:
» Reinitiate the City’s homeownership programs and seek opportunities and funding sources to
extend preferences or marketing strategies to improve homeownership of residents.
» Develop affirmative marketing strategies for government-assisted homeownership and
rehabilitation opportunities in neighborhoods with a high percentage of renters.
» Seek collaborative partnership with nonprofits capable of making home repairs to expand housing
rehabilitation and security within the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony.
» Encourage development of missing middle housing, including smaller courtyards, triplex/duplexes,
cottage housing, and other/small-lot developments to expand affordable housing opportunities.
» Develop more apartments, including affordable housing, to increase the supply of housing and
reduce the incidence of market-driven rent escalation in neighborhoods.
Issue 6: Fair Housing Assistance
Fair housing providers revealed a relatively small number of complaints annually, due in part to the few
apartment properties in Moorpark. However, there is a need for greater level of outreach and advocacy.
The provider noted a significant shortage of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.
Legal aid and eviction counseling is limited countywide, particularly for undocumented residents. For
those facing eviction, early intervention is critical to ensure that the situation is resolved. This can be
challenging given that many linguistically isolated and undocumented residents lack access to resources.
At the same time, there is a lack of education for tenants and landlords on housing rights and resources.
For low-income residents, many live in older housing requiring repairs and rehabilitation and are
concerned with displacement due to recent upturn in sales prices and rents. Recommendations include:
» Bilingual outreach for non-English speaking residents
» Renter protections from displacement or eviction
» Comprehensive systemic code enforcement efforts
» Landlord education (reasonable accommodations, state laws, etc.)
» Need to produce more affordable housing, especially for extremely low-income
114
Table 4-27 identifies the fair housing issues, contributing factors that result in fair housing issues, and the
meaningful actions the City will undertake to address them.
Table 4-27 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Limited Housing
Opportunities
Limited housing
opportunity that limits
the choices of residents
in finding housing
• Historical overproduction of single-family
housing and limited production of multiple
family rental housing (e.g., apartments)
• Lack of available land zoned at appropriate
densities to facilitate the production of
multiple-family rental housing
• Zoning and regulatory processes that
constrain the development of a range in
types, prices, and tenure in housing
• Redesignate land via the
general plan update to allow
for diversity of housing
• Update zoning code and
regulatory processes that
constrain development
• Reexamine development and
housing fees that may
constrain new housing
• Offer regulatory relief to
facilitate creative use of land
and different housing types
Neighborhoods
requiring investment
Older neighborhoods
with predominantly
lower income and
Hispanic residents,
need reinvestment
• Downtown and Virginia Colony are
historically the oldest areas and therefore
need more public and private investment
• Downtown and Virginia Colony residents
are predominantly lower income Hispanics
who rent housing in these areas
• Limited availability of affordable housing
and variety of housing types outside of the
Downtown and Virginia Colony
• Neighborhoods in the Highlands,
Mountain Meadows, Carlsberg, Peach Hill,
and College areas are more desirable, and
therefore more costly than the L.A. Avenue
Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony
• Implement Downtown Specific
Plan to increase the supply of
affordable housing
• Prioritize capital projects and
public services that address
needs in each neighborhood
• Support, where feasible, local
nonprofits serving residents in
lower-income neighborhoods
• Recruit residents to serve on
boards, committees, task
forces, and other local
decision-making bodies
Lack of housing
opportunities for
special needs groups.
• Shortage of accessible, affordable housing
and social services for seniors and persons
with disabilities
• Shortage of housing and service options
for meeting the needs of homeless people
or those at risk of homelessness
• Zoning and regulatory barriers for housing
due to municipal codes that require
updating in accordance with state law
• Shortage of farmworker housing
countywide and/or services that might
serve this population
• Lack of funding available to address the
needs of special needs groups
• Adopt initiatives that
document need, address
regulatory barriers to housing,
and cooperate with agencies
to address needs
• Seek to establish, fund, and
implement an affordable
housing trust fund to provide
a permanent source of funds
115
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Limited integration of
different groups in
neighborhoods
• Limited affordable housing opportunities
citywide and in high resource areas due to
predominance of single-family housing
• Generally lower incomes of residents that
are associated with race-ethnicity,
educational levels, and age levels
• Lack of access to resources that would
otherwise assist residents in accessing
affordable housing in the city
• Develop and adopt an
inclusionary housing
ordinance citywide
• Prepare affirmative, bilingual
marketing to promote greater
access to affordable housing
• Partner with fair housing
providers to educate landlords
on income discrimination and
voucher programs
• Partner with fair housing and
local CBOs that serve lower
income residents to provide
housing mobility counseling
Resident concern with
displacement
• Rental housing prices have increased
dramatically in recent years due to
underproduction of apartments
• Single-family home prices have soared in
the past few years, making it unattainable
to purchase housing for lower and
moderate- income households
• Reinvestment in the Los Angeles Avenue
Corridor-Downtown could raise property
values and rents, displacing primarily
Hispanic and lower income residents
• Reinitiate City homeownership
program and seek options to
extend local preferences
• Develop affirmative marketing
for publicly-assisted ownership
and rehab opportunities
• Seek collaborative partnership
with nonprofits capable of
making home repairs to
further housing security
• Encourage development of
missing middle housing to
expand affordable housing
• Develop more apartments,
including affordable housing,
to increase supply and reduce
market-driven rent escalation
Need for greater fair
housing advocacy
• Shortage of housing units affordable to
extremely low-income households
• Legal aid and eviction counseling is limited
countywide, particularly for undocumented
• Linguistically isolated and undocumented
residents lack access to resources
• Lack of education for both tenants and
landlords on housing rights and resources
• Poor housing conditions is more common
for lower income residents
• Lower income residents are at high risk of
displacement due to market changes
• Bilingual outreach for non-
English speaking residents
• Renter protections from
displacement or eviction
• Comprehensive systemic code
enforcement efforts
• Landlord education (e.g.,
(reasonable accommodations,
state laws, etc.)
• Need to produce more
affordable housing, especially
for extremely low-income
Source: City of Moorpark, Stakeholder consultations
116
This section summarizes the City’s share of the region’s need for housing (RHNA) for the 2021-2029
Housing Element planning period and the credits that can be deducted from the City’s requirements.
Following this analysis, this section demonstrates the suitability of sites for the RHNA and various financial
and organizational resources that the City can utilize to address its housing needs.
The RHNA is one of the more critical mandates required of
every local government in California. The California
Legislature has stated that the availability of housing is of vital
statewide importance, as is the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every
Californian. To implement that mandate, the HCD is required
to develop housing needs projections for every region in
California, including southern California. Housing planning
needs are projected for an eight-year period, from 2021 to
2029, for the southern California region.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for assigning housing
production goals for each city. In accordance with state law, SCAG must consider specific housing
planning considerations, but is allowed to develop a tailored model for the region. SCAG’s regional
housing need model takes into account the availability of land, adequacy of infrastructure and services,
market demand for housing, fair housing implications, employment and transit, local population growth
estimates, and many other housing and planning factors.
Table 4-28 shows the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA for use in the Housing Element.
Table 4-28 Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029
Household
Income Levels
RHNA Requirement
Definition of Affordability
by Household Income Level
Number of
Units
Percent of
Units
Very Low Households earning 31-50% of AMI 377 29.3%
Low Households earning 51-80% of AMI 233 18.1%
Moderate Households earning 81-120% of AMI 245 19.0%
Above Moderate Households earning above 120% of AMI 434 33.6%
Total 1,289 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020.
117
It is important to note that local government are not required to build housing or financially subsidize
the development of new housing. However, cities are responsible to ensure that adequate sites are
available during the planning period to accommodate housing at the designated affordability levels. Sites
must be available at all times during the planning period.
Generally, local governments are allowed to address their assigned RHNA in four ways:
Option 1: Housing Production
The City can count housing that receives a certificate of occupancy after July 1, 2021 to satisfy the RHNA.
Proposed housing projects can also be included if they are likely to be approved and built from July 2021
to October 2029, subject to adequate documentation. Moorpark’s strategy for meeting the RHNA is
unique compared to most southern California jurisdictions. The City has a sufficient number of projects
in the pipeline to fully meet the RHNA goals. A major priority of this Housing Element is to facilitate and
encourage the development so that the units will be built within the 2021-2029 planning period.
Option 2: Accessory Dwellings
While HCD has historically allowed accessory dwelling units to count toward the RHNA production goals,
amendments to state law have expanded the ability to use this strategy for the Housing Element. Cities
may count the production of ADUs toward their RHNA in accordance with specific statutory guidance
and state administrative guidance. The City is using a “safe-harbor” approach (average number of ADUs
built from 2018 to 2020), as allowed for under state law to count ADUs toward the 2021-2029 RHNA.
However, the City fully expects to exceed the safe harbor estimate for ADUs.
Option 3: Available Land
Housing Element law allows cities to count the residential development capacity on vacant and
underutilized sites that are appropriately zoned for housing. The City appears to be able to accommodate
its 2021-2029 RHNA without additional sites. However, the General Plan update underway anticipates
redesignating sites that will meet any shortfall in the 6th cycle RHNA, provide a buffer to avoid no net
loss provisions, or provide for the 7th cycle RHNA. These sites are anticipated to provide more
opportunities for housing at different densities and types than are allowed under the municipal code.
Option 4: Alternative Credits
Government Code §65583.1 allows, under prescribed conditions, units that will be substantially
rehabilitated, converted from market rate to affordable, converted from nonresidential to residential, or
where affordability is preserved to be counted towards the adequate sites requirement and regional
housing needs goals. Because the City’s affordable multifamily housing projects are deed restricted as
affordable in perpetuity and are currently in excellent condition, the Section 65583.1 option is not feasible
for credit toward the 2021-2029 at this time.
The remainder of this section discusses the City’s RHNA strategy.
118
As of 2020, Moorpark has 10 approved or pending residential development projects. The following
describes general characteristics of several projects credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA. These
residential projects and their precise affordability levels are summarized in Table 4-27.
• Everett Street Terraces. Everett Street Terraces is
proposed for a 2.44-acre site on the north side of
Everett Street, east of Walnut Canyon Road. The
project includes 60 condominiums, an outdoor
pool and spa, play area, and various site
improvements. The residential project will provide
15% (3 very low and 6 low-income units) of its
total units as affordable to lower income
households, in accordance with anticipated
development and affordable housing agreements.
• Pacific Communities. Pacific Communities is an
approved residential project on a 39-acre site on
the south of Los Angeles Avenue and east of
Maureen Lane. The project will include 153 small-
lot, single-family residential units and 131
detached condominiums. Within this total, 9% (25
units) will be deed restricted as affordable to lower
income households in accordance with its
development agreement and affordable housing
agreement.
• Aldersgate Project. Aldersgate is an approved,
continuing-care retirement community, and one
needed to accommodate the growing senior
population in the city. This residential project is
located north of downtown near Hitch Ranch. Of
the 390 units, 260 units will be independent units,
and 130 units will be assisted living (memory care),
of which 26 are deed restricted rental units
affordable to lower income households, in
accordance with its development agreement and
affordable housing agreement. Aldersgate
Everett Street Terraces
119
• High Street Depot. The High Street Depot is the
first mixed-use, transit-oriented development in
the downtown, adjacent to the Metrolink station
and along the historic Southern Pacific rail. This
project is intended to facilitate and accelerate the
broader revitalization of downtown Moorpark in
accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan. As
approved, this project will include 79 apartment
units, community green space, 14,000 square feet
of commercial space, and 11 deed restricted units
affordable to moderate-income households, in
accordance with its approved development and
affordable housing agreement.
• Green Island Villas. Green Island Villas is a
residential project approved for development on a
vacant, 4.0-acre lot at 635 Los Angeles Avenue, in
the heart of downtown Moorpark. The project is a
63-unit ownership townhome/condominium
project, which includes a 15% inclusionary
requirement consisting of 10 lower income
housing units, in accordance with its development
agreement and affordable housing agreement.
The project has submitted for building permits and
is awaiting approval to proceed with construction.
• Oakmont. Oakmont is an assisted living and
memory care project on a 2.8-acre lot at 13960
Peach Hill Road. Currently under construction, this
residential project will provide 77 residential units
of progressive care through high levels of assisted
living, fulfilling its aging-in-place philosophy. This
complex is the first large-scale senior assisted
living project in Moorpark and is intended to
address the needs of seniors requiring specialized
health care and assistance and desiring to stay in
the city. The project is a market rate project and is
not subject to an affordable housing agreement.
High Street Depot
Oakmont Assisted Living
120
• Beltramo. Beltramo is a proposed residential project
on a 7.4-acre site at the southeast corner of Los
Angeles Avenue and Beltramo Ranch Road. The
project consists of 47 single-family detached homes
and 95,000 square feet of combined open green
space, including a 1-acre green space. The project is
anticipated to provide 15% affordable units (7 lower
income units) in accordance with its development
agreement and affordable housing agreement.
• North Ranch/Moorpark 67. North Ranch/
Moorpark 67 is a residential project proposed on a
68-acre site on the west side of Gabbert Road, north
of Poindexter Ave. The project includes 138 single-
family units, associated detention basins, and
manufactured slopes. Also included are 20
affordable units (18 moderate and 2 lower income)
in accordance with its development agreement and
an affordable housing agreement.
• Essex (Vendra Gardens). Vendra Gardens is proposed for a 10.6-acre site on the south side of Casey
Road, west of the city hall. Located at a former high school site, the project will include 200 apartment
units, with 100% of the units affordable to very low and low-income large families. The developer
submitted a funding application request (CA 21-693) for 4% tax credits and was awarded funding in
December 2021. The apartment project is subject to its approved development agreement and
affordable housing agreement. The project will move forward with plan finalization in 2022.
Beltramo Ranch
121
Hitch Ranch Specific Plan
The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan encompasses a 270-acre site north of Poindexter Avenue and west of
Moorpark Avenue. The Specific Plan intends to construct a primarily residential community with park
facilities, private recreational facilities, open spaces, and equestrian trails. Of the 755 units, 620 units are
anticipated to be above moderate-income units, and 135 units will be deed restricted as affordable to
lower income households. At this time, the Specific Plan has been processed for administrative review by
the City’s staff, and environmental analysis is proceeding. On completion of the draft EIR, the plan will be
presented for public review and hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council in early 2022. In
approved, development would likely commence in 2024, with full buildout of the plan expected by 2029.
As part of the development agreement, the City is negotiating for the developer to dedicate 23 acres of
land that will be graded, improved with infrastructure, and ready for development. Once the City takes
title to the land, the site will be suitable for multiple-family housing. The City intends to sell the land to
an affordable or market rate developer and execute a development agreement and affordability housing
agreement to address any shortfall in the 2021-2029 RHNA. The current assumption is that the
affordability distribution will be split evenly between low and moderate-income households.
122
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs have become an increasingly attractive option
for providing housing in communities across California.
The relatively low cost to build accessory dwelling units
and the straightforward permitting process are
attractive to homeowners. ADUs offer an opportunity
for homeowners to provide accommodations for their
family or extended family members. In other cases,
ADUs can also offer opportunities for seniors, college
students, or other individuals to rent housing.
The City has been receiving and approving applications
for ADUs on a consistent basis and updating its
ordinances as required by state law to facilitate the
construction of new accessory dwelling units. The
following applications have been submitted since 2018.
• 2018, 9 applications submitted, 5 permitted
• 2019, 14 applications submitted, 6 permitted
• 2020, 25 applications submitted, 19 permitted
• 2021, 15 applications submitted, 15 permitted
In accordance with the “safe-harbor approach”, an average of 16 ADU applications are anticipated to be
submitted and eventually developed on an annual basis from 2021 through 2029. At this rate, the City
can expect 128 new ADUs during the Housing Element planning period. Based on HCD’s approval of
SCAG’s ADU analysis, the affordability of new rental units will be as follows: 15% very low-income, 30.9%
low-income, 42.5% moderate-income, and 11.6% above moderate-income.3 The Housing Plan provides
further information on the City’s ADU program.
The City is working with its city partners in the Ventura Council of Governments to assist and support
projects that facilitate the development of ADUs. Specifically, VCOG has received a LEAP grant to retain
a consultant who will develop prototypical plans for a modular ADU that meets local codes. In addition,
the consultant is developing alternative plans for garage conversions with standard 20x20 dimensions.
These plans will be promoted on VCOG’s dedicated regional ADU webpage. Once complete in 2023, the
City anticipates adapting these resources to accelerate the production of ADUs in the community.
3 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, Southern California Association of Governments, 2021.
Prototype of an Accessory Dwelling
123
This page intentionally left blank.
124
Figure 4-18 Approved or Pending Developments in Moorpark
125
This page intentionally left blank.
126
The City will accommodate its RHNA through the processing of 10 residential projects in the pipeline.
Should these development applications not proceed, the City will rezone additional sites identified during
the comprehensive update of the General Plan. The project sites are in two areas–Championship-Gabbert-
Hitch Ranch and Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown. These areas are discussed below.
Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch
Residential projects will result in approximately 600 new units affordable to lower income households,
250 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 1,150 units affordable to above moderate
households. This includes a 100% affordable project (Vendra Gardens) which will provide 198 apartments
affordable to very low- and low-income families and Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, which provide 369 units
affordable to low-income households. The Aldersgate continuing-care retirement community will provide
26 total units for seniors, with approximately 15% of the units set-aside (or 26 deed restricted units) that
are affordable to lower income households.
Proposed development directly addresses the integration of incomes into a high resource area. As
discussed, this neighborhood is not a RCAA since it contains some racial/ethnic diversity, but the
neighborhood is generally considered wealthy, with a median income of $150,000 plus. As noted earlier,
different race-ethnic and age groups in Moorpark have a strong correlation with income levels. Therefore,
the provision of affordable housing in this neighborhood would be expected to draw a broader mix of
residents with different incomes and age levels–furthering the City Council’s strategic goal for housing,
achieving the City’s RHNA goals, and affirmatively furthering fair housing opportunity.
Housing proposed in the Hitch subdistrict will provide higher access to opportunity than neighborhoods
located along Championship Drive, and others accessed from Walnut Canyon. Residents of all income
levels will have convenient access to social and commercial services, multiple grocery stores, excellent
schools, medical offices and pharmacies, and civic uses (e.g., library, senior center, family clinic, etc.). Public
transit is offered along Walnut Canyon south of Wicks Road and the High Street Station provides access
to Metrolink and Amtrak. Seniors living at Aldersgate will have access to the City’s paratransit and senior
dial-a-ride services. Residents will also benefit from excellent environmental quality of the area.
Housing issues experienced by existing households in this neighborhood do not demonstrate
disproportionately concentrated housing needs. The prevalence of housing overcrowding is minimal and
even housing overpayment is not very high given the housing prices and rents. Substandard units are
limited to a handful. While the new housing projects will add new residents to the area, there is no
evidence to suggest that it will materially create concentrations of residents based on familial status,
race/ethnicity, or disability. In fact, the breadth of units and affordability levels will foster a more inclusive
community–consistent with state and federal law to affirmatively further fair housing.
127
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown
Moorpark’s Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown neighborhood generally encompasses the middle
of the community, extending from the eastern to westerrn city limits. It is presently home to all of the
City’s eight apartment complexes, including the five that offer either 100% affordable or offer rent-
restricted units. When originally built, these apartments were likely concentrated in the flatlands to avoid
the higher cost of building in steeper hillsides to the north and south. Moreover, most of the City’s
commercial, office, and service sectors are in this area. Los Angeles Avenue (SR-118) bisects this area and
connects to the regional arterial network and the SR-23.
In planning for this neighborhood, the City is cognizant of the unique household and housing needs. For
instance, this neighborhood has a disproportionate concentration of Hispanics compared to other areas,
and 40-60% of households earn low to moderate-incomes. Overcrowding affects up to one in four
households in specific subdistricts. The older housing in the area is also in need of rehabilitation. There
are no other known concentrations based on familial status, disability, or other status. However, as
discussed earlier, the neighborhood has areasin need of reinvestment in infrastructure. The General Plan
update is reexamining underutilized sites to identify the highest and best use for opportunity sites.
Five residential projects are planned during the 2021-2029 planning period for this neighborhood. The
High Street Depot and Green Island Villas will allow for the development of 10 housing units affordable
to low-income households, 11 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 121 units affordable
to above moderate-income households. South of SR-118 (designated as high resource), the Duncan
Ashely, Pacific Communities, and Beltramo projects will introduce 46 deed restricted low-income units
and 380 above moderate-income units. The predominance of higher priced units will not replace existing
units but rather help stimulate reinvestment, without causing an escalation of housing prices and
associated gentrification concerns.
This area offers convenient access to proficient schools, after school programs, social services, and
commercial uses, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and medical clinics. Public transit is highly available
in the Downtown, with frequent bus stops providing access to shopping centers, schools, and parks along
Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark Avenue, and Spring Street. The High Street Depot is adjacent to the
Metrolink/Amtrak station. The new projects incorporate green space; for instance, the Beltramo project
proposes over 95,000 square feet of combined green space. High Street Depot and Green Island Villas
are intended to catalyze revitalization of the planning area.
As the proposed residential projects include rental units affordable to lower income households, the
competition for limited affordable rental units will lessen. However, renewed interest and investment in
the area could exacerbate the housing concerns expressed by existing residents, particularly renters.
Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan has also raised concerns with potential displacement.
Moving forward, and in light of these concerns, programs aimed at mitigating the risk of displacement
(e.g., homeownership, targeted marketing, etc.), the Housing Plan contains several programs to mitigate
displacement concerns and improve housing security for existing residents.
128
Table 4-29 shows a summary of the pipeline residential projects that have been approved, pending
approval, or are under construction and which will receive a certificate of occupancy/final inspection
during the 2021-2029 planning period. Eight projects were in the prior 21013-2021 Housing Element.
Affordability of projects is assumed to be market rate unless controlled by an Affordability Housing
Agreement. In short, the City exceeds the entire RHNA by income category, provided very low and low-
income credits are combined into a lower income category, in accordance with state law allowances.
Table 4-29 Approved and Planned Residential Projects in Moorpark
Project Name
Project Specs Affordability Level
Project
Status Type- Units
Afford.
Reqd
Very
Low Low Mod
Above
Mod
Oakmont Assist Living 77 N/A * ** ** ** C
High Street Depot Apts 79 DA/AHA –– –– 11 68 A
Green Island Villas Town 63 DA/AHA –– 10 –– 53 A
Pacific Communities SFR 284 DA/AHA –– 25 –– 259 A*
Aldersgate Apts 260 DA/AHA –– 26 –– 234 A*
Essex (Vendra) Apts 200 DA/AHA 60 138 –– 2 A*
Beltramo Ranch Condo 47 DA/AHA –– 7 –– 40 P
Everett Street Condo 60 DA/AHA 3 6 –– 51 P*
Moorpark 67 SFR 137 DA/AHA 2 –– 16 119 P*
Hitch Ranch SP Plan Mix 755 DA/AHA –– 135 –– 620 P*
City Site Apts 468 DA/AHA –– 234 234 –– P*
Vistas at Moorpark SFR 110 DA/AHA 4 5 –– 101 P
Canyon Crest SFR 21 N/A –– –– –– 21 P*
4875 Spring Road SFR 95 DA/AHA –– 14 –– 81 P
Accessory Dwellings ADU 124 Market 19 38 53 14
TOTAL RHNA Credit 2,703 88 638 314 1,663
Source: City of Moorpark, March 2020.
Notes:
* Project listed in the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element.
** Assisted living cannot be counted toward the RHNA but is shown for informational purposes
Project status is one of three phases:
C= Under Construction: projects where building permits have been approved and construction is underway
A = Approved: projects which have received approvals and entitlements.
P = Pending approval: projects working through the process (e.g., CEQA is being prepared, agreements being finalized, etc.)
129
Given that many of the residential projects mentioned above slated for development during the 2021-
2029 cycle were included in the prior 2014-2021 Housing Element, the City is proposing a program to
accelerate the development of housing, including pipeline projects.
These include:
• Rezoning program, where all the residential projects cited in Table 4-27 be redesignated and/or
rezoned by October 15, 2022 in accordance with AB 1398 to allow for the development of housing
affordable to lower and moderate-income households;
• Affordability requirement, for vacant sites used in the prior housing element which dedicate 20% or
more of the units are proposed as affordable to lower income households, a program will allow
rezoning to allow developments by right pursuant to Government Code §65583.2(i); and
• Monitoring program, that ensures that if housing projects are not built at the required affordability
levels or sites rezoned, that additional sites would be designated with suitable zoning and
development standards to ensure no net-loss of sites.
Table 4-30 summarizes the City’s strategies for facilitating the production of housing commensurate with
its assigned share of the regional housing needs assessment.
Table 4-30 Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029
RHNA and Credits
Housing Affordability Levels
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Mod
Income Total
RHNA 377 233 610 245 434 1,289
Approved Projects 60 199 259 11 616 886
Pending Projects 9 401 410 250 1,033 1,693
Accessory Dwellings 19 38 57 53 14 124
Total Credits 88 638 726 314 1,663 2,695
Summary RHNA Met RHNA Met RHNA Met RHNA Met
Source:2021-2029 RHNA; City of Moorpark Pipeline Residential Developments, 2021
130
Most California cities rely on a combination of public, private, and not-for-profit agencies to provide
financial assistance needed to develop, rehabilitate, and preserve affordable housing and/or provide
services for low and moderate-income residents. Financial and administrative resources for addressing
the city’s housing needs are summarized below.
Financial Resources
The City of Moorpark relies on local, state, federal, and nonprofit entities to provide funding that can
finance the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing. Recent projects in the
city have used the following funding sources:
City Bonds
Moorpark has used bond to finance the development and preservation of affordable housing. In 2000,
the City issued local mobile home revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, and
preservation of the Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Park. As part of this project, 48 units were deed
restricted as affordable to income-qualified residents. In addition, in 2016, the City of Moorpark issued
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the development of the Vintage Crest Senior Apartment
project, which provided 189 units of affordable housing to lower income seniors. According to the City’s
2019 Consolidated Annual Financing Report, however, each of these bond programs does not constitute
an indebtedness of the City; the bonds are paid through proceeds and revenues earned by the individual
housing projects that have received public financing.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program is the largest source of federal and state funds used
by the affordable housing development community to finance the construction and rehabilitation of low-
income affordable rental housing The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee is responsible for
reviewing and approving applications of projects and allocating federal and state tax credits. The
committee verifies that the developer meets all the requirements of the program and ensures the
continued affordability and habitability of the projects for 55 years. Although the application process is
competitive, 115 affordable housing projects in Ventura County have received tax credit funds since 2000.
In Moorpark, three affordable rental housing projects (Vintage Crest Apartments, Charles Street
Apartments, and Walnut Family Apartments) have been financed through tax credits.
Community Development Block Grants
Federal funding for housing programs is available through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Since the City is not an entitlement jurisdiction, Moorpark receives its Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation through the County of Ventura rather than directly from
HUD. The CDBG program is flexible. Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, acquisition and/or
disposition of real estate or property, public facilities, and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation, and
131
construction (under certain limitations) of housing, homeownership assistance, and clearance activities.
The County is the final decision-making body regarding CDBG projects, and the City plays an advisory
role in recommending applications to fund. In the past, the City’s public service allocation has typically
been used to fund social service organizations. The CDBG allocation for Moorpark generally varies and
depends on the number and type of funding applications submitted countywide, county funding
available, and alignment with CDBG priorities.
Housing Choice Vouchers
The City maintains membership in the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHACV), which
administers the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Program. The HAP Program assists elderly
and disabled households by paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and
the actual cost of renting a unit. The Housing Authority also operates Tafoya Terrace, a 30-unit affordable
senior apartment project in Moorpark, and Charles Street Terrace, a 20-unit affordable large-family
apartment project adjacent to Tafoya Terrace. While these two apartment developments are available to
tenants who receive Section 8 certificates, they are not restricted to only Section 8 tenants. The AHACV
currently owns 73 units of public housing and provides an additional 123 rental vouchers to income-
qualified households annually, totaling $1.7 million in housing payments in 2019.
In-Lieu Fees and the Housing Trust Fund
Since 1997, the City has collected or has agreements in place for the collection of in-lieu fees from
developers for the purposes of providing affordable housing pursuant to development agreements. The
in-lieu fees and amounts are project specific and vary based on the terms of the development agreement.
Annual increases in the fees are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The in-lieu fee revenue collected
from developers is placed in the housing trust fund, which is used (as specified by regulations) to assist
in the development, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing in Moorpark. In past years, the
City has often used housing in-lieu fees to purchase residential land, which is then sold or transferred to
developers of affordable housing who will build projects in Moorpark. The City has approximately $3.3
million in housing funds for affordable housing as January 1, 2022.
Housing Trust Fund
Ventura County Housing Trust Fund (VCHTF) was created in 2008 to respond to the needs of affordable
housing developments, which often experience funding gaps during the planning or construction phases.
The VCHTF works to leverage funds by combining private resources with foundation and public agency
funds to build a revolving loan fund dedicated to expanding affordable and workforce housing. VCHTF
often makes loans early in the development cycle, before traditional funding is available, and thus
provides the financial support and credibility needed to attract other money. Today, VCHTF has become
a state and federal Certified Development Financial Institution (CDFI), receiving financial support from all
10 cities in Ventura County. VCHTF has provided bridge funds for most of the cities in Ventura, including
three loans totaling $1,125,000 to finance the development of the Walnut Street Apartments. As part of
the Housing Element, the City is planning on establishing a local housing trust fund.
132
Administrative Resources
Ventura County has a large network of local nonprofits, government agencies, organizations, and
developers who are active in providing affordable housing and social services to low and moderate-
income families and individuals in Moorpark. Some of the many nonprofit agencies operating in
Moorpark are noted below.
First 5 Ventura County
First 5 provides PACT (Parent and Child Together) classes and resources for families. Families can access
screenings, referrals, parent education, and more services to families with children aged 0 to 5. Services
provided include family education training on parenting issues; information, guidance, and referrals for
children with special needs; resources for childcare and childcare providers;
medical/dental/vision/nutrition screenings and workshops; Healthy Families/MediCal application
assistance; adult English as a second language and literacy classes; and other services.
Catholic Charities and Moorpark Community Service Center
Catholic Charities is a nonprofit organization that provides various social services such as eviction
prevention assistance, utility payments, and emergency rental payments. Since 1978, Catholic Charities as
operated the Moorpark Food Pantry, which collects various donations of perishable and nonperishable
food items, clothes, and personal hygiene items to be distributed to the neediest families in the
community. Other services are provided to meet unexpected needs that a family or individual may have.
Catholic Charities operates out of the Ruben Castro Human Services Center.
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
The Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation’s (CEDC) mission is to provide comprehensive housing
services and community economic development activities through a community-building approach that
facilitates self-sufficiency for individuals and families who are most lacking in opportunity in Ventura and
Santa Barbara counties. CEDC also has construction, property management, homeownership, counseling,
and community building divisions. CEDC, in cooperation with Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corporation,
was involved in developing the 62-unit Villa Campesina project in Moorpark.
Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County
Habitat for Humanity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building affordable housing and
rehabilitating damaged homes for lower income families. Located countywide, Habitat has an office in
Simi Valley. Habitat builds and repairs homes for families with the help of volunteers and
homeowner/partner families. Habitat homes are sold to partner families at no profit with affordable, no-
interest loans. Volunteers, churches, businesses, and other groups provide most of the labor for the
homes. Land for new homes is usually donated by government agencies. Since Habitat launched its
“Preserve a Home” program in 2011, 12 homes have been rehabilitated in the county.
133
Many Mansions Inc.
Many Mansions is a nonprofit housing and community development organization founded in 1979 to
promote and provide safe, well-managed housing to limited income residents of cities in Ventura County.
Many Mansions develops, owns, and self-manages special needs and permanent affordable housing. The
organization also provides resident services, housing counseling, a food bank, and homeownership
counseling. Many Mansions built the Walnut Avenue Apartment projects in Moorpark and is under
contract to build additional affordable housing projects in Moorpark.
Housing Rights Center
Along with many other communities in Ventura County, Moorpark contracts with the Housing Rights
Center to provide a wide range of fair housing services for residents. These services include landlord and
tenant counseling regarding their rights and responsibilities, including questions about security deposits,
evictions, repairs, rent increases, harassment, and more. The Housing Rights Center also offers
investigations of discrimination and fair housing education and outreach. The Housing Rights Center
participated in the regional analysis of fair housing for Ventura County.
Ruben Castro Charities
In 2012, the City of Moorpark built the Ruben
Castro Human Services Center (RCHSC). This
25,000-square-foot center is a multiservice and
“one stop” location where social service
organizations provide services to vulnerable
people in the community. Local nonprofits,
including Catholic Charities, Interface, and the
Ventura County Human Services Agency, have
offices and operate from this location. The
RCHSC also has the benefit of housing the
County of Ventura’s Moorpark Family Medical
clinic. The center is conveniently located in
downtown Moorpark.
Area Housing Authority
The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHACV) is an independent, nonprofit agency
serving the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai,
Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks. The AHACV provides a range of services, but its primary responsibility is
to manage the federal housing voucher program. The AHACV provides 123 rental housing vouchers to
income-qualified households, owns and manages 73 public housing units, and partners with other
agencies to provide housing and related services for residents of Moorpark. As of January 2020, the
Housing Authority provides rental assistance to approximately 200 households in Moorpark.
134
Section 65588(a) of the California Government Code requires that local governments evaluate the
effectiveness of their existing Housing Element; the appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies; and
the progress in implementing housing programs from the previous planning period. The following
sections summarize the progress achieved in meeting the quantified objectives of the 2014–2021 Housing
Element and a program-by-program assessment of the programs in the prior Housing Element.
The 2014-2021 Moorpark Housing Element contained specific quantified objectives for the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Moorpark. Table 4-31 lists those quantified objectives and
the progress made toward each objective. The progress is derived from the annual progress reports for
the Housing Element provided to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in
accordance with §65400 of the Government Code.
In summary, the City met its housing production goal for units affordable to above moderate-income
households, but fell short for its very low, low, and moderate-income goals because these goals require
public subsidies. Rehabilitation projects also fell short due to limitations in the structure of the program.
Finally, no affordable multiple family projects are at-risk of conversion; therefore, no activity occurred.
Table 4-31 2014-2021 Housing Element Objectives and Accomplishments
Goals and Progress
Affordability Level of Units
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total Units
Goals
Housing Production1 289 197 216 462 1,164
Housing Rehabilitation2 20 15 0 0 35
Housing Preservation3 0 0 0 0 0
Progress
Housing Production1 15 39 11 518 583
Housing Rehabilitation2 0 1 0 0 1
Housing Preservation3 0 0 0 0 0
Source: City of Moorpark, October 2020.
1 The quantified objective for housing production is equivalent to the City’s 2014 regional housing needs allocation.
2 Rehabilitation activity is constrained by the number of applications submitted and by applicants’ qualifications.
3 No multifamily housing projects were at risk of conversion to market rents; therefore, there is no quantified objective.
135
The 2014–2021 Housing Element contained 22 housing programs to implement the goals and policies of
the Housing Element. Table 4-32 describes the progress made in implementing each program based on
annual progress reports submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Also
included is an evaluation of the appropriateness of the program for the 2021-2029 Housing Element
based on City staff evaluation and interviews with stakeholders and the GPAC. Additional programs will
be added to the Housing Element based on staff evaluation, changes to state law, and comments received
during the engagement process for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Housing
Program
Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
Program 1.
Housing
Rehabilitation
Provide loans for a
maximum of 25
single-family
homes and 10
mobile homes
• One mobile home loan was issued in the 2014-2021 cycle
although the City has issued about 60 rehabilitation loans
since the 1990s. In recent years, however, structural issues
with the program have led staff to investigate repurposing
funds from housing rehabilitation to other planning and
program efforts.
• Housing rehabilitation remains a concern, but the issue is
localized in several areas or concentrated among lower
income households. The City will continue the housing
rehabilitation program for the 2021-2029 Housing Element,
but seek different funding sources, partners (e.g., Habitat),
and strategies to better target efforts.
Program 2.
Code
Enforcement
Continue code
enforcement
activities
• Code Compliance responds to code violations to reduce the
incidence of building and property maintenance hazards.
Typical issues include: illegal garage conversions, unpermitted
subdivisions, unpermitted patio enclosures, people living in
non-habitable structures and RVs, and drug houses. City staff
see 4 to 8 cases per month for each category, usually
concentrated in the Downtown.
• Code compliance remains an important tool for maintaining
quality of life and addressing blight and unsafe housing and
property conditions. The City will continue this program for
the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Active nonprofits may also
be encouraged to help residents remedy violations.
Program 3.
RHNA Sites
Ensure no net loss
of residential
capacity for the
RHNA throughout
2014-2021
• The City identified sufficient sites to accommodate the entire
2014–2021 RHNA as part of the Housing Element. Since
adoption of the Housing Element, the City continues to
implement this effort in accordance with SB 166.
• The program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element period since housing is a key council goal. Additional
136
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Housing
Program
Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
housing sites will be added as part of the General Plan
update, allowing the City to ensure no net loss of residential
capacity through 2029.
Program 4.
Downtown
Specific Plan
Continue to
implement the
Downtown Specific
Plan.
• In 2020, the City amended the Specific Plan to allow mixed
land uses. Subsequently, the City approved plans for the 69-
unit High Street Station, which included 11 units deed
restricted as affordable to moderate-income households.
• As part of the General Plan update, the City will implement
the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate additional residential
and mixed use development. This program will continue for
the 2021-2029 Housing Element period.
Program 5.
Farmworker
Housing
Implement zoning
regulations in
conformance with
the Employee
Housing Act.
• The Municipal Code continues to allow farmworker housing
for employees of a farming operation in the zoning districts
allowing rural residential and agricultural uses. No
applications were submitted to develop farmworker housing.
• The program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element. The City anticipates revising zoning code provisions
for employee housing and working with local and regional
partners to address the need for farmworker housing.
Program 6.
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Continue to
encourage and
facilitate such uses
• City staff updated ADU standards and process to comply with
state law in effect as of 1/1/20. Handouts and customer
references were updated. More than 40 ADU permits were
issued from 2017 to 2020 and interest remains strong.
• As a key strategy for the RHNA, this program will continue for
the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The City will examine ways
to incentivize additional ADU production and work with
VCOG cities on a regional strategy to facilitate ADUs.
Program 7.
Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional and
Supportive
Housing
Continue to
comply with SB 2.
Amend Zoning
Code to update
definitions of uses
consistent with SB
745 of 2013.
• In conformance with Government Code §§65583 and 65589.5,
the zoning code allows emergency shelters by right subject to
objective development standards in the C-2 zone, and at
existing places of worship in residential zones. Definitions of
transitional and supportive housing were also amended.
• Though the city’s homeless population is small, this program
will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The City will
update the zoning code to allow for navigation centers and
reexamine codes that address housing for homeless people.
Program 8.
Single Room
Occupancy
Continue to allow
SROs by right in
the C-2 zone.
• The City continues to maintain compliance. No applications
were submitted requesting an SRO project. This program will
continue to be implemented much like other municipal codes
and will be reviewed and updated as state law changes.
137
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Housing
Program
Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
• Because the action was simply a code amendment, this will
not be included as a separate program in the 2021-2029
Housing Element.
Program 9.
“Section 8”
Rental Housing
Voucher
Participate,
advertise, and
encourage rental
property owners to
register units with
the Housing
Authority.
• Moorpark continues to participate in and advertise Section 8
Housing, which is provided and managed by the Area
Housing Authority of the County of Ventura. Presently, there
are 200 households using Section 8 vouchers in Moorpark.
• Section 8 remains a key program to assist low-income renters
and will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Opportunities for increasing the use of vouchers, particularly
in new apartments in the pipeline, will also be explored.
Program 10.
Mortgage Credit
Certificate
Program
Continue to
participate in
program and
advertise.
• From 2017-2019, 5 MCC loans were issued. The lack of loans
in recent years is due to the escalation of housing prices and
changes in tax laws. The program has yielded modest results,
but first time homeownership remains a priority.
• The MCC program will be deleted for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element, but the City will explore additional funding sources
to start a new homeownership program for residents.
Program 11a.
Mobile Home
Affordability
Monitor Villa Del
Arroyo's
compliance with its
Regulatory
Agreement
• The City monitors Villa Del Arroyo’s compliance agreement to
ensure that the 48 affordable units remain occupied by very-
low-income families. Villa Arroyo may be eligible for
assistance under AB 83 (Housing Trailer bill), so this project
may warrant further review in the Housing Element.
• This program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element. The City will also explore options to
maintain/improve the condition of the mobile home park to
retain its long-term viability.
Program 11b.
Resale Refinance
and Option to
Purchase
Monitor Resale
Refinance
Restriction and
Option to Purchase
Agreements.
• The City continues to monitor the status of affordable
projects that received public financing to ensure that
occupancy and affordability terms are maintained in
accordance with their agreements. Currently none of the
projects are at risk of conversion.
• While there are no affordable projects at risk of conversion, it
will remain important to retain this program as there may be
options for improving existing properties. This program will
continue for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 12.
Inclusionary
Program
Implement fee
expenditure
priorities; Use
inclusionary funds
• The City continues to implement these fee expenditure
priorities: 1) affordable housing production; 2) subsidy of
affordable housing; 3) housing rehabilitation; and 4) housing
138
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Housing
Program
Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
to assist
development of up
to 20 VLI units by
the end of 2014.
assistance. From 2014 to 2021, the City facilitated
development of 19 VLI units.
• While the program continues to be successful, since the City
is updating its General Plan and zoning code, the City will
explore the adoption of an inclusionary requirement and
formal expenditure policy to ensure development of
affordable housing.
Program 14.
Land
Assemblage
Assist in purchase
and assembly of
land to
accommodate the
City's fair share of
housing needs.
• The City continue to encourage the provision of quality,
affordable housing through use of land write-downs,
assemblage of land, direct financial assistance, and/or
regulatory incentives. The Successor Agency negotiated a
DDA on property it owns on Everett Street to provide for 23
very low/low-income affordable units.
• This program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
Program 15.
Regulatory and
Financial
Assistance
Provide regulatory
assistance for
projects that
address local
housing needs at
least twice during
the planning
period.
• The City provided regulatory assistance to the Area Housing
Authority to facilitate development of Charles Street Terrace.
The City also granted a $2 million fee reduction for under-
grounding utility lines for projects. The City is renegotiating
DA’s to assist in the development of affordable housing.
• This program has been effective in facilitating and
encouraging the development of affordable housing and
therefore will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 16.
Assistance to
CHDOs
Continue to work
with local CHDOs
by providing
assistance for
affordable housing.
• The City assembled 3 parcels on 136 First Street, 1.6 acres for
Pacific Communities, and other parcels for potential
affordable housing (e.g., Charles Street, Fremont Street, and
Walnut Canyon). The City recently worked with a CHDO to
assist in the development of the Walnut Street Apartments.
• For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City will seek to
expand its potential collaborative partners to facilitate the
provision of affordable housing and services to residents.
Program 17.
Density Bonus
Continue to
monitor state
Density Bonus law
and update local
regulations as
needed
• The City updated its density bonus ordinance in 2017. Since
its adoption, a density bonus was granted for the Walnut
Street Apartments, and other projects are underway.
• This program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element. However, the ordinance will also be updated for the
latest changes in density bonus provisions in state law and for
consistency with the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Program 18.
R-P-D
Continue to use R-
P-D Zone to
• The City continues to use the R-P-D zone and PDP process to
facilitate the development of affordable housing, most
139
Table 4-32 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Housing
Program
Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
Designation and
PDP Process
encourage a
variety of housing
to address local
needs.
recently for the Walnut Street Apartments for families. This is
the primary zone used to facilitate the production of multiple
family and affordable housing at higher densities.
• This program will continue for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element. However, the role of the RPD will diminish because
amendments to existing General Plan designations and
zoning will allow for additional capacity without an RPD.
Program 19.
Off-Street
Parking
Continue to
monitor parking
conditions in
residential
developments.
• The City’s Code Compliance continues to monitor off-street
parking congestion in residential neighborhoods and respond
to complaints as necessary. Off-street parking remains an
issue at times in overcrowded areas or in hillside areas.
• While off-street parking remains an issue, this effort will
continue but will be subsumed under the larger Code
Compliance Program for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 20.
Fair Housing
Services
Continue provision
of fair housing
services and
publicize services
throughout the city
• The Housing Rights Center, as the fair housing provider for
Ventura County cities, continues to provide counseling and
legal guidance for residents and landlords regarding all fair-
housing-related concerns. HRC holds workshops as well.
• Given the city council’s direction on housing opportunity, this
program will be significantly expanded for the 2021-2029
Housing Element, not only to increase housing choice and
opportunity, but to address other fair housing concerns.
Program 21.
Reasonable
Accommodation
Continue to
implement the
ordinance
• In 2016, the City issued one zoning clearance 2016-366 for a
Reasonable Accommodation to convert one garage space to
a wheelchair-accessible pantry for the resident. No other
reasonable accommodations were identified.
• As this program is a key “aging in place” strategy, the
reasonable accommodation program will continue for the
2021-2029 Housing Element. To increase its participation, the
program will be advertised online and through other venues.
Program 22.
Childcare
Facilities
Consider incentives
for co-locating
childcare facilities
and affordable
housing; prioritize
funds for projects
with family support
and childcare
• The City partners with First 5 to provide childcare, preschool
type services at the Ruben Castro Human Services Center and
manage a preschool at the Arroyo Vista Center. During the
2014-2021 cycle, no developers used childcare facilities to
receive development incentives such as the density bonus.
• This program will not be extended, but rather folded into the
density bonus update program for the 2021-2029 Housing
Element. However, since the zoning code will be updated
Sources: City of Moorpark, Annual Progress Reports, 2014-2020;
Interviews with City staff and program managers; Interviews with housing stakeholders.
140
State law requires cities to make a "diligent effort" to achieve participation by all segments of the city in
the Housing Element. The Housing Element updated was part of an overall update to the General Plan,
so Moorpark solicited input from the public throughout the Housing Element process—during
development of the draft element, public review of the draft element, and the adoption process. A high-
level summary of the City’s program for public engagement and participation follows.
Community Survey
The City administered an online survey via SurveyMonkey from June 17, 2020, through August 31, 2020.
The City advertised the survey using postcard mailers, social media, “M-Powered” newsletters, Moorpark
TV, and the General Plan project website at MoorparkGeneralPlan.com. The survey was available in English
and Spanish. Participants were asked about how important it was to provide more of certain housing
types in Moorpark. The most important housing characteristic reflected was the need for a mix of housing
types (reported by 70% of the respondents), closely followed by affordable rental housing (noted by 69%
of residents). Feedback received through this survey was considered by the City and GPAC and was
reflected in the City’s Strategic Plan goals.
General Plan Advisory Committee
As part of the General Plan update, a GPAC was appointed to provide input, feedback, and
recommendations to City staff, the planning commission, and city council on key components of the
General Plan update. All GPAC meetings were duly advertised and open to any member of the public who
could attend either in person or online. All agendas and materials can be found at:
http://moorparkgeneralplan.com/participate/gpac/. GPAC meetings were also covered by the local press,
with articles posted in the Moorpark Acorn, and other organizations.
Between 2020 and 2021, the GPAC held one dozen meetings covering topics relevant to the Housing
Element, including housing sites; housing needs and trends; and housing goals, policies, and programs.
GPAC agendas indicated that assistance and information in Spanish would be available upon request.
Meeting dates and topics that provided foundation material for the general plan update and the
development of the 2021-2029 housing element were:
» October 1, 2020. GPAC Orientation
» October 22, 2020. Visioning
» December 10, 2020. Visioning
» November 12, 2020 Existing Conditions
» February 25, 2021. Opportunity Sites
» March 18, 2021. Opportunity Sites
» April 29, 2021. Development Types and Housing
» May 27, 2021. Land Use and Opportunity Sites
» July 10, 2021. Land Use Workshop
» September 2, 2021. Housing Issues
» December 9, 2021. Housing Goals and Programs
» December 16, 2021. Land Use Opportunity Areas
141
Special Needs Consultations
The City conducted direct consultations with community stakeholders and developers during the update
of the Housing Element. These included groups such as senior service providers, service providers to
people with disabilities, college representatives, service agencies for lower income populations,
developers and architects, nonprofit housing developers, and fair housing organizations. These
consultations helped to refine the issues and priorities for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Interviews included:
• Farmworker Housing Interests (House Farmworkers)
• Homeless Service Providers (County of Ventura)
• Senior Service Agencies (City of Moorpark, Area Agency on Aging)
• Disabled Person Organizations (Independent Living Center, Tri County Regional)
• Fair Housing (Housing Rights Center, DEFH, and HUD)
• College Student, Faculty, and Employees (Moorpark College)
• Affordable Housing Developers (People’s Self Help, Habitat, etc.)
• Market Rate Housing Developers (Private Developers and Architects)
Website Presence
The City made a diligent effort to keep the
public informed about the status of the
General Plan update and 2021-2029
Housing Element update. A General Plan
website was set up to inform residents of
the update, including the Housing
Element. The website included
presentations made to the advisory
committee, planning reference
documents, information from community
surveys, draft Housing Element, review
letters from HCD, and other materials. The
website can be accessed online at:
http://moorparkgeneralplan.com.
142
Incorporation of Outreach Results
Through more than a dozen GPAC meetings and mamy supplemental discussions with community
stakeholders, new and expanded housing programs were proposed for the housing element. Table 4-33
lists those programs. Futher information on each program is found in the Housing Plan.
Table 4-33 Highlights of Selected Program Changes based on Outreach
Comments by
Goal Area
Program Specifics and Progress
Synopsis Incorporated
Goal 1:
Housing and
Neighborhood
Quality
Need for stronger housing
rehabilitation and neighborhood
improvement; extend to mobile
homes and underserved areas such
as Downtown and Virginia Colony
• Restart housing rehabilitation program
• Include capital improvement plan
• Priority for underserved areas
Goal #2:
Housing
Assistance
Need to establish citywide
inclusionary requirement and
sustainable long-term fund to
support housing production. Also
need funding to allow new/existing
residents to purchase homes
• New citywide inclusionary program – not
dependent on project-by-project DDAs.
• New Affordable housing trust fund program
• Restart/refund homeownership program
• Develop priority list for fund expenditure
Goal #3:
Housing
Opportunities
Significant need to expand the
type, breadth, and tenure of
affordable and market rate housing
• Stronger ADU program
• Stronger homeless housing/services program
• New College/Faculty Housing program
• New Seniors/disabled people program
• New Farmworker Housing program
Goal #4:
Remove Housing
Constraints
Developers, stakeholders and city
staff recognized the many
constraints to the production of
housing – permit processing, fees,
lack of land and need for
collaborative partners
• New Development Fee Study program
• New Permit Process Streamlining program
• New comprehensive Zoning Code update
• New collaborative partnership program
• Expanded land acquisition/disposition program
Goal 5.
Fair Housing
While systemic fair housing issued
were not found, the City needs to
significantly expand housing
opportunities for all ages and
incomes
• Fair housing program expanded
• New housing opportunity programs targeting
the City’s special needs groups
• Housing and reinvestment strategies targeting
underserved areas/groups
• Homeownership programs to help residents
build wealth
Sources: City of Moorpark, Stakeholder Interviews, 2021.
143
The Housing Plan is Moorpark’s statement of priorities for addressing its housing needs. It contains a
series of goals, policies, and implementation programs to address local housing needs in accordance with
statutory requirements set forth in Housing Element law. The goals represent end states that the City
desires to achieve over the Housing Element period. Policies provide strategic guidance to achieve the
future end state desired by the city. Programs refer to implementation activities that the City is committed
to undertaking to achieve or further achievement of a policy and/or goal.
As the City looks forward through 2029 and beyond, the Housing Plan (e.g., goals, policies, and programs)
is intended to reflect three major emphases: 1) state law requirements to address the maintenance,
preservation, improvement, and development of housing for residents of all economic segments in a
manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing; 2) local needs that require a broader mix of affordable,
accessible, and quality housing that serves the needs of all residents; and 3) City Council strategic goal to
identify options and solutions to barriers for housing for all economic and age ranges.
144
Housing and Neighborhood Quality
Moorpark residents cherish their neighborhoods and the
peaceful and desirable environment provided. In south
Moorpark, the Mountain Meadows, Peach Hill, and
Carlsberg neighborhoods provide a mix of single-family
suburban neighborhoods, predominantly comprised of
single-family homes. The Downtown is the City’s historic
core, dating back to the founding of the community. It
provides the greatest variety of housing–single-family to
townhomes to apartments–in highly differentiated disricts.
The College area is master planned, providing single-family
and townhome units. Moorpark Highlands and other areas
north of downtown provide residential hillside settings.
Maintaining neighborhoods and housing in good condition is a priority to ensure desirable residential
environments. The City continues to undertake efforts to provide supporting infrastructure and public
facilities; offer a mix of quality parks and open spaces; and offer programs to maintain and improve the
quality of housing. These efforts will ensure the long-term health and viability of neighborhoods.
Goal HE-1: Provide neighborhoods of well-maintained homes, ample public services and facilities,
open spaces and recreation, and infrastructure that provide quality places to reside .
Policies
HE-1.1 Building Code Compliance. Ensure that all new housing construction adheres to applicable
building, safety, health, and energy conservation requirements.
HE-1.2 Code Compliance. Monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards
and enlist volunteer participation in maintaining housing and residential neighborhoods.
HE-1.3 Neighborhood Amenities. Provide public safety services, infrastructure maintenance, and
other public services to maintain the quality of neighborhoods, and the environment.
HE-1.4 Housing Investment. Facilitate the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of residential
structures to provide safe and healthful housing opportunities for all residents.
HE-1.5 Historic Preservation. Support the designation, preservation, and maintenance of historically
and/or architecturally significant buildings.
HE-1.6 Neighborhood Revitalization. Prioritize funding to rehabilitate housing, provide services, and
improve infrastructure in older neighborhoods that have experienced limited investment.
145
Housing Assistance
Recent years have seen housing prices outpace increases
in household income. The high demand for housing
coupled with a limited supply of housing has made it
more difficult to find and afford housing. Increased
housing prices and rents have made it more difficult for
younger families to buy or rent housing and, in some
cases, have led to families leaving the city to buy housing.
The unaffordability of rental and ownership housing has
made it particularly difficult for college students and
faculty, farmworkers, seniors, people with a disability,
and others to find and retain housing.
Responding to these housing needs requires a
sustainable housing strategy that will provide long-term solutions. Housing production is required to
address the shortage of housing that underlies price increases. Homeownership assistance is required to
attract and retain younger households and other demographic groups. Rental assistance is equally
important, allowing households the ability to accumulate wealth and to retain their homes. Preservation
of existing affordable housing also helps existing lower income residents retain their housing.
Goal HE-2: Facilitate expansion, improvement, and preservation of housing options and support
the provision of housing assistance for lower, moderate-income, and/or special needs households.
Policies
HE-2.1 Financial Assistance. Use public financial resources, to the extent feasible, to support provision
of housing for lower income and special needs households.
HE-2.2 Rental/Ownership Assistance. Support county efforts to provide rental assistance and provide
homeownership assistance to expand options for low-moderate-income buyers.
HE-2.3 Preservation of Affordable Housing. Support the conservation and preservation of mobile
home park, publicly subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable housing.
HE-2.4 Inclusionary Housing. Require 15% of newly constructed units in qualified ownership and
rental housing developments to be affordable to lower-moderate-income households.
HE-2.5 Collaborative Partnerships. Participate in and support collaborative partnerships that provide
funding and assistance for the development, improvement, and preservation of housing.
HE-2.6 Supportive Services. Provide assistance, where feasible, financial and administrative resources to
community-based organizations serving Moorpark residents.
146
Housing Opportunities
While Moorpark has developed as a primarily single-family
residential and suburban community, the City is gradually
changing along with the rest of Ventura County. Broader
demographic trends (aging, diversification, household
composition, income levels, etc.) coupled with ongoing
economic shifts in employment and income levels have
changed the role of the City in the region and its
population. As the City matures and progresses toward its
buildout, the City can expect demographic changes and a
continued need for a broader range of housing types.
Housing diversity will be a key theme to retain residents.
Moorpark strives to have a balanced supply of housing
products affordable for all income levels, including groups with special needs. With the high cost of
housing in the city, there is an acknowledged need for also addressing a missing middle, including
courtyard housing, affordable townhomes, triplexes and fourplexes. Moreover, providing expanded
housing options for lower income residents will continue to be needed. The intent of this goal is to assist
in the provision of housing to meet the full needs of the community, including renter and owner
households of varying lifestyle needs.
Goal HE-3: Facilitate well-designed housing that is diverse in product type, occupancy, location,
affordability, and tenure and that meets the existing and future needs of residents.
Policies
HE-3.1 Housing Sites. Identify adequate sites to be made available and zoned at the appropriate
densities, to achieve housing goals set forth in the RHNA.
HE-3.2 Adequate Service levels. Ensure residential sites and developments have appropriate and
adequate levels of public services, facilities, circulation, and other infrastructure and services.
HE-3.3 Housing Design. Encourage exemplary design in housing architecture, site layout, and
landscaping consistent with the General Plan, design standards, and sustainability principles.
HE-3.4 Mixed Use Development. Promote and encourage mixed-use residential and commercial uses,
where appropriate, to create more vibrant neighborhoods and activity centers.
HE-3.5 Expanded Housing Options. Support and facilitate a broader range of housing options for
college students and faculty, farmworkers, disabled people, seniors, and homeless people.
HE-3.6 Missing Middle Income. Support the development of missing middle-income housing, including
smaller courtyard housing, triplex/duplexes, cottage housing, and other small-lot developments.
147
Housing Constraints
Moorpark, like many communities in the region, faces
potential constraints to housing production.
Environmental features include hillside topography,
floodplains that span the length of the city, nearby fault
lines, and wildfire hazard zones on the north and southern
hillsides. These features require special attention to
mitigate potential impacts., The City also has a
diminishing stock of vacant land. As the City is the newest
incorporated community in 1983, many local ordinances
were inherited from county ordinances.
Moorpark is updating its General Plan and zoning code to
address many of the issues that affect the development of
residential uses that offer communitywide benefit. The City must be increasingly flexible and creative in
the ways it can reduce regulatory, market, or environmental barriers to development while still ensuring
environmental impacts are fully addressed and that residential projects are well designed and add value
to the community. These methods must extend beyond singular strategies of relaxing development
standards but also must include ways to encourage the consolidation of lots and facilitate the creative
reuse of underutilized sites. The following goal and policies address potential constraints.
Goal HE-4: Where appropriate, mitigate to the extent feasible, constraints to the production,
maintenance, and improvement of housing.
Policies
HE-4.1 Municipal Ordinances. Periodically review City regulations, ordinances, and fees/exactions to
ensure they do not unduly constrain the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing.
HE-4.2 Regulatory Concessions. Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing,
including relief from development standards and density bonuses where appropriate.
HE-4.3 Permit Processing. Provide for streamlined, timely, coordinated, and concurrent processing of
residential projects to minimize holding cots and encourage the production of housing.
HE-4.4 Infill/Mixed Use. Support infill residential and mixed use development at suitable locations and
provide, where appropriate and feasible, incentives to facilitate their development.
HE-4.5 Administrative Exceptions. Offer administrative exceptions to standards, where feasible, that will
be needed to facilitate and encourage the production of housing.
HE-4.6 Land Assemblage. Facilitate the acquisition, consolidation, and disposition of land in accordance
with state law to support the development of affordable housing.
148
Fair Housing
Housing Element law requires that all cities affirmatively
further fair housing in accordance with state and federal
law. These provisions guarantee protections to California
residents, prohibiting housing discrimination through
public or private land-use practices, decisions, and
authorizations based on protected status according to the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government
Code §65008, and other state and federal fair housing law.
Affirmatively furthering fair housing requires meaningful
and deliberate actions to overcome disparities, promote
fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities free
from discrimination and other barriers that restrict access
to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
While the City is predominantly a high(est) resource community, the City is actively committed to
expanding housing opportunities for all of its residents regardless of the neighborhood where they reside.
As detailed in prior goals, this includes providing a diversity of housing and associated services that are
available within each of the City’s respective neighborhoods. The City Council remains firmly committed
to improving the equity in housing for residents of all incomes.
Goal HE-5: Further equity in the provision, type, and affordability of housing and the availability
of services for all Moorpark residents.
Policies
HE-5.1 Fair Housing Services. Support fair housing services to residents, property owners, landlords,
lenders, and others in the provision, financing, and occupancy of housing.
HE-5.2 Prohibit Discrimination. Work to end discrimination in either the sale, rental, financing, or
occupancy of housing on the basis of state or federal protected classes.
HE-5.3 Equitable Access to Resources. Work to ensure that all neighborhoods have fair access to public
facilities, supporting infrastructure, and community services.
HE-5.4 Inclusive Public Participation. Provide an open and receptive forum for city residents,
commissions, stakeholders, and City staff to discuss opportunities to improve fair housing.
HE-5.5 Municipal Practices. Administer municipal programs and activities relating to community
development and housing in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.
149
Housing and Neighborhood Rehabilitation
Program 1: Historic Preservation
Although incorporated in 1983, the City of Moorpark dates back more than a century to the original
agricultural communities of Epworth and Fremontville in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The town of
Moorpark was founded in 1900, centered around the downtown and railroad line. The Downtown Core,
its street layout, infrastructure, scattered housing projects, and vestiges of the City’s agricultural past are
scattered in the core of the community and potentially the northern sphere. The City’s knowledge of
historic resources is limited to defined county landmarks, surveys of a few properties, general knowledge
of the City’s history and resources, and a historic preservation ordinance. A general district assessment
would help establish a baseline of resources and indicate a need for more formal historic planning.
Objective(s):
• Initiate a general identification and assessment of historic resources in the downtown to assist in
determination of the need for more formal preservation activities.
• Work with Moorpark Historical Society and other local and regional partners to assist in identifying
resources.
• Explore programs to assist the City in preserving historic resources or older housing that is of local
importance.
Program 2: Housing Rehabilitation
The City periodically administers a housing rehabilitation loan and/or grant program to assist Moorpark
residents in making repairs and improvements to their homes. While the program is not funded at this
time, there remains a continued need to assist residents in repairing their homes, addressing code
violations, and making accessibility improvements. A field survey identified that homes in the Virginia
Colony, Downtown, and Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Estates could benefit from rehabilitation
assistance. Other homes scattered throughout the city might also be assisted. To address this unmet
need, the City will seek funding and collaborative partners to provide financial assistance needed to
restart the housing rehabilitation program. This program will assist in ensuring that housing provides a
safe and healthful environment for residents, particularly for households with limited financial means.
Objective(s):
• Seek, apply for, and allocate funding for housing rehabilitation program.
• Extend program to include assistance for ownership units, including mobile homes.
• Seek collaborative partnership with nonprofits capable of making home repairs.
150
Program 3: Housing Code Compliance
Code compliance is one of the most tangible ways to maintain quality housing and neighborhoods. The
City’s Building Code, Housing Code, Property Maintenance Code, and other regulations establish
minimum standards for the construction and maintenance of buildings, property, and structures. The
City’s Code Compliance program enforces these regulations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
the public, maintain quality neighborhoods, and ensure a high quality of life. The program also includes
enforcement of the no-smoking/vaping ordinance in apartment properties and compliance with parking
restrictions in neighborhoods. In addition to City codes, homeowners may need to comply with Codes,
Covenants, and Restrictions adopted by homeowner associations that are more restrictive than city
ordinances and that are outside the purview of City staff. To encourage code compliance, the City
provides information about relevant codes and resources available to address code violations.
Objective(s):
• Require adherence to local property regulations and requirements.
• Ensure that new housing meets state building codes, including green building designs.
• Conduct inspections of potentially substandard residences to ensure health and safety.
Program 4: Capital Improvement Plan
The City implements a variety of projects as part of its annual capital improvement program (CIP). Every
year, the Public Works Department submits a CIP that identifies needed improvements to capital facilities
such as streets, storm drains, parks and facilities, water facilities, and wastewater systems, etc. The CIP is
correlated with goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and adopted Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Transition Plan to expand access to facilities, infrastructure, and services. The City will be
retaining a consultant to identify and quantify the condition of pavement and associated infrastructure.
Expenditures are prioritized based on community needs and the availability of funding. Programs can be
neighborhood specific or have broader community benefit. This process will help the City maintain the
quality of its operating infrastructure, address and prevent the accumulation of deferred maintenance,
and ensure that resources are wisely expended. As part of the program, the City will also prioritize
improvements to the disadvantaged areas noted in the AFH.
Objective(s):
• Annually prepare and implement the CIP to improve community infrastructure.
• Develop a geographic information system (GIS)-based pavement management system to guide street
maintenance and repair.
• Target efforts, to the extent feasible, to areas that have experienced disinvestment.
151
Housing Assistance Programs
Housing assistance programs include those designed to assist extremely low-, very low-, low-, and
moderate-income households secure and retain affordable housing in the community.
Program 5: Inclusionary Housing/Nexus Study/Fee
The City implements an informal inclusionary housing program and requires developers to set aside up
to 15% of new units as affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. This program has
facilitated the production of several hundred apartments, condos, and single-family housing units
affordable to income-eligible households. However, the current inclusionary requirement only applies to
projects requiring a legislative action (e.g., a zone change or General Plan amendment). With the
enactment of SB 166, many cities are adopting inclusionary ordinances to ensure that affordable housing
is built, to avoid “no-net loss requirements,” and to assist the City in meeting state obligations. Having a
formal program will streamline the process as it will avoid a project-by-project negotiation and complex
development agreement. The program can be structured to require different levels of affordability for
rental or ownership projects, thus tailoring the program to market conditions.
Objective(s):
• Conduct a nexus study as a prerequisite to design an inclusionary requirement.
• Draft and adopt the inclusionary housing program and expenditure priorities.
• Monitor program effectiveness on an annual basis.
Program 6: Affordable Housing Trust Fund
While the State of California has made increasingly more financial assistance available for affo rdable
housing, it has also become more competitive to secure funds for local governments. To help address
the gap in funding, the City seeks to establish a Moorpark Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) Program
to fund the provision of long-term below market rate housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households and enhance housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The AHTF
is anticipated to be used for a wide variety of housing-related purposes, including the provision of loans
to qualified developers, public entities, groups, and individuals to encourage the development of new
housing and obtain credit toward the City’s current and future RHNA mandate.
Objective(s):
• Develop AHTF program parameters (priority, eligibility, and assistance levels).
• Seek mechanism to establish, grow, and maintain the affordable housing trust fund.
• Issue RFQs for affordable housing in conjunction with the City’s acquisition, land assemblage, and
disposition program to further City affordable housing goals and priorities.
152
Program 7: Assist in the Development of Affordable Housing
The provision of housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households is a priority of the
State of California and a requirement for the City’s Housing Element. The development of affordable
housing requires a variety of tools, incentives, partners, and financing. Moorpark’s affordable housing
assistance program is intended to assist in the development of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income
housing by leveraging the many tools, incentives, partners, and financing available. For instance, the City
will be developing an inclusionary ordinance that requires the provision of affordable housing as part of
new projects. The City will also make available, as needed, a range of regulatory and financial incentives
(e.g., density bonus, administrative exceptions, and other regulatory relief, etc.) to improve project
feasibility. The establishment of the Moorpark AHTF will provide a self-sustaining fund that can provide
financial support for the long-term delivery of affordable housing. The City has retained a new Housing
Program Manager who will have this wide range of tools to implement the program.
Objective(s):
• Formalize the City’s affordable housing assistance program.
• Develop priority list to achieve goals of the Housing Element and General Plan.
• Seek eligible projects to provide housing assistance.
Program 8: Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
The housing choice voucher (often referred to as Section 8) program is a federal program administered
by the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHACV) that provides rental assistance to
extremely low- and very low-income households. The program offers a rent “voucher” that is equal to the
difference between the current fair market rent for an apartment and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e.,
based on 30 percent of their household income). The AHACV sets preferences for the following six groups:
Residency (lives or works in city), AHA Preference, Elderly, Disability, Veteran/Active Serviceperson, or
Families Terminated Due to Insufficient Funding. A tenant may choose to live in housing that costs above
the normal 30-percent payment standard if they pay the extra rental cost. Housing vouchers can be
allocated to projects (“project-based”) or to renters (tenant-based). Presently, about 200 income-eligible
households benefit from the housing choice voucher program in Moorpark. While the AHACV is solely
responsible for administering this federal program, the City can support county efforts through referrals
and public information/advertisements.
Objective(s):
• Participate in the housing choice voucher program and refer eligible households to the County
Authority for rental vouchers.
• Publicize the program through a housing resource brochure and on the city's website and expand
outreach and education on the state's source of income protection (SB 329, SB 222).
153
Program 9: Homeownership Assistance
Moorpark has always been known for its high rate of homeownership compared to communities
throughout the county. However, local housing prices have soared over the past decade. Local surveys
indicate that residents and businesses see the need for expanding homeownership opportunities,
particularly as a means of retaining and attracting employees, providing young adults the option to stay
in Moorpark rather than move to other lower-cost communities, and allowing individuals to downsize to
other homes. Traditionally, the City has supported the mortgage credit certificate program, but it has had
limited success because of housing prices. Nevertheless, with the adoption of an inclusionary ordinance,
the increase in the number of forecasted affordable single-family homes, and the pursuit of other
complementary affordable housing funds, the opportunity exists to retool the homeownership program
to better align with the real estate market in Moorpark.
Objective(s):
• Retool the homeownership opportunity program, with a focus on moderately priced single-family
homes, condominiums, and townhomes.
• Prioritize funding and opportunities to Moorpark residents and those working or attending
educational institutions in the community.
Program 10: Affordable Housing Preservation
Moorpark has more than a dozen affordable housing projects serving lower moderate-income residents.
Traditionally, these projects have received public assistance in return for affordable housing units. The
City has four apartment properties that receive public subsidies. In addition, the City has mobile homes,
condominiums, townhomes, and single-family homes that also have deed restrictions guaranteeing long-
term affordability or, due to market sales prices, are affordable to low- and moderate-income residents.
Some of the projects have options to terminate affordability covenants during the 7th cycle Housing
Element, while others are restricted as affordable in perpetuity. While no affordable housing project is at
risk of conversion to non-low-income uses in the next 10 years, the City supports the long-term
preservation of these properties. Moorpark will initiate discussions with owners of at-risk properties.
Objective(s):
• Periodically initiate and maintain discussions with owners of affordable housing properties as to their
needs.
• As feasible, identify and/or offer options to maintaining the long-term viability of the properties as
affordable housing.
• If needed, coordinate technical assistance and education to tenants and work with owners regarding
proper notification procedures should properties become at risk of conversion.
154
Housing Opportunities Programs
Housing production programs are specifically designed to expand the number, type, and availability of
housing in the community through specific programs to address different need groups.
Program 11: Downtown Specific Plan
Moorpark has long envisioned a downtown that provides a vibrant and pedestrian-oriented environment
with shopping, entertainment, and housing for residents. Such an opportunity would capitalize on the
Metrolink extension and the economic activity that accompanies increased rail activity. The Downtown
Specific Plan encompasses the Moorpark Downtown and Old Moorpark area. The plan envisions
transforming Downtown Moorpark into a vibrant commercial and residential destination that harkens
back to its earliest days as the center of the community. The plan outlines the envisioned uses for each
parcel, including residential, multifamily, mixed-use, and commercial uses. In addition, the plan prescribes
roadway improvements and circulation changes and lists the various infrastructure features and services.
The City recently approved the development of the High Street Depot, the City’s first mixed-use project
adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The City anticipates continuing to support development and
revitalization of the downtown as part of implementation of the Housing Element.
Objective(s):
• Continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and support the introduction of residential, mixed
uses, and other land uses within the area.
• Revise the design standards in the Specific Plan for consistency with the objective development and
design standards to be drafted in compliance with Government Code §65913.4.
Program 12: Objective Development and Design Standards
Ensuring well-designed residential projects is essential to creating a desirable living environment and
preserving and enhancing the character of neighboring areas. Design review is accomplished through
three means—specific plans, RPD process, or through specific requirements of overlay zones. Following
staff review of the application, the Planning Commission then reviews the project based on findings.
Currently, the City does not have stand-alone residential design guidelines that are applied citywide.
Instead, design standards are negotiated on a project-by-project basis. At times, the lack of standards
has resulted in delays for approving and conditioning applications for residential development projects.
Looking forward, the City seeks to provide greater certainty to the development community regarding
the City’s expectations for residential development in accordance with Government Code §65913.4.
Objective(s):
• Prepare and adopt objective development and design guidelines (objective zoning, subdivision, or
design review standards) that are in accordance with Government Code §65913.
155
Program 13: Housing Sites Inventory
This Housing Element provides an inventory of residential projects in the development pipeline that
contain vacant and underutilized sites that will fully accommodate the city’s 2021-2029 RHNA. To facilitate
and encourage development, the City will maintain an inventory and map of these sites for residential
development and other sites that will be redesignated after adoption of the General Plan. Many of the
residential projects in the pipeline were included in the prior 2014-2021 Housing Element. Projects and
needed sites will be monitored to ensure that there is no net loss in residential development capacity
during the planning period. However, if sites become insufficient for the RHNA or projects are not
completed in a prescribed timeframe, additional sites will be redesignated in accordance with state law.
Objective(s):
• Maintain inventory of residential sites needed to address the 2021-2029 RHNA; periodically review list
of sites for compliance with no-net-loss requirement.
• Allow by-right residential projects consistent with zoning that offers 20% of units affordable to low-
income households and are proposed on sites from the 2014-2021 Housing Element.
• If housing products and affordability levels are different than anticipated and cause a shortfall in the
RHNA, redesignate sites within 180 days to address the shortfall.
Program 14: Site Rezoning
As part of the General Plan update, the City envisions that additional sites will likely be redesignated for
housing. In other cases, upzoning may occur that allows higher densities in different areas of the city. The
City also has a wide variety of residential projects moving through the residential development pipeline.
To address the City’s share of the RHNA for the 6th cycle and throughout buildout of the General Plan,
the City will commence the redesignation of sites along with sufficient density levels that will
accommodate housing to fully address the 2021-2029 RHNA. Additional sites will be redesignated in
accordance with City Council adoption of the General Plan. As required by law, the redesignations are
required to occur by October 15, 2022. The City will continue to work toward completion of the General
Plan update that will allow for redesignation of sites within that timeframe.
Objective(s):
• Identify sites that will be redesignated and rezoned for housing and/or mixed uses at the appropriate
densities to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA.
• Complete the rezoning and redesignation of sites needed to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA by
no later than October 15, 2022.
Program 15: Accessory Dwelling Units
An ADU is a self-contained living unit with cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation facilities, either
attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot. ADUs can be an effective strategy
156
for providing intergenerational housing and reducing overcrowding. The City has periodically amended
its municipal codes to allow for ADUs consistent with changes in state law. The municipal code allows
Junior (J)ADUs in all residential zones with a zoning clearance and allows JADUs and qualified ADUs
without a zoning clearance depending on the unit specifications (except O-S and TPD zones). The City is
working with VCOG to develop prototypical modular ADUs that can be adapted to Moorpark. Until then,
the City is projecting 125 ADUs over the planning period in accordance with the safe-harbor approach.
Objective(s):
• Amend zoning code to permit ADUs as a by-right use on any lot that allows single- or multifamily
housing or mixed-use zone in accordance with Government Code §65852.2(a).
• Record progress in ADU production on the annual progress report for the Housing Element by April 1
of each year.
• Review and implement options for providing programs to encourage ADUs, such as prototype plans,
fee waivers, expedited procedures, and affordability monitoring programs.
Program 16: Single-Family, Mobile Homes, and Manufactured Housing
The MMC defines a single-family dwelling as a detached building constructed in conformance with the
Uniform Building Code, or a mobile home constructed on or after June 15, 1976, designed or used
exclusively for occupancy by one family and containing one dwelling unit. In accordance with California
Government Code §65852.3, Moorpark allows manufactured homes certified under national
manufactured housing construction and safety standards on a permanent foundation in zones that allow
single-family homes. The City also conditionally permits mobile homes and mobile home parks. Current
definitions contained in the MMC raise concerns. The definition of a single-family dwelling raises fair
housing concerns as it could be interpreted to limit families occupying a home. In addition, the codes are
unclear on whether, how, and where factory-built housing is permitted, although this land use must be
allowed like any other single-family residential land use in the community. Concurrent with the zoning
code update, amendments will be made to address these issues.
Objective(s):
• Remove the references to potentially restricting single-family residential units designed or used
exclusively to one family to address any potential fair housing.
• Review and, as necessary, revise provisions for mobile homes and factory-built housing in accordance
with Government Code §65852.3 and other applicable provisions of state law.
Program 17: Homeless Services
Homelessness is a pressing issue for many cities, and the varied dimensions have significant implications
for the type of housing provided to homeless people and their service needs. While the City has had a
point-in-time count of zero, outside agencies report potentially higher numbers countywide. As required
by state law, the City amended its municipal code to allow for emergency shelters, transitional housing,
157
and supportive housing, but additional amendments will be made. The City has also signed an MOU with
the County pledging participation in countywide efforts to address homelessness. Locally, the City
supports the Ruben Castro Center, which is home to Ruben Castro Charities, Moorpark Family Medical
Clinic, the County Human Services Agency (HSA), Catholic Charities, Interface Children Family Services,
and First 5—all of which provide direct or referral services to individuals who are unhoused.
Objective(s):
• Support a more robust point-in-time count of people experiencing homelessness in the county and
city to obtain more accurate information for planning purposes.
• Amend zoning code to include parking standards for shelters and clarify how and where transitional
and supportive housing is permitted in accordance with Government Code §65583 (4)(A)(ii).
• Amend zoning code to permit a Low-Barrier Navigation Center as a by-right use in areas zoned for
mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses (Government Code §65662).
Program 18: College Housing Services
Moorpark College has long been a highly valued community asset, providing education, employment,
and enrichment opportunities to the community. Presently, the college is a commuter school for both
faculty and students due to the high price of ownership and rental housing in the community. Moreover,
as is the case statewide, college students often face precarious and uncertain housing situations. Looking
forward, Moorpark College seeks to help address the increasing unmet need for housing affordable for
faculty and students, and help to retain and attract both. The State Legislature has recently made available
one-time competitive grants for community colleges. The Ventura Community College District and
Moorpark College will be applying for planning grants. Should the planning study yield a favorable result,
the College seeks additional options for partnering with the City for expanding housing opportunities.
Objective(s):
• Support the College’s efforts to apply for a housing planning feasibility study; if study demonstrates a
need, support college in application for a construction grant.
• Support other housing initiatives to address student and faculty needs.
• Assist in the development of housing that is attainable to this group.
Program 19: Housing for Seniors and Disabled People
Moorpark has a large senior population that is the fastest-growing segment over the past two decades.
The City is responding by approving retirement communities and specialized housing for memory care.
The City’s Active Adult Community Center is the centerpiece for city services to its senior residents. The
City implements a transition plan to update its facilities, services, and programs to make them accessible
and provides low-cost transit for this segment of residents. Despite these efforts, affordable senior
housing is in short supply as are housing options and services for disabled people. To address the unmet
158
needs of seniors and people with disabilities, Moorpark seeks to pursue a “housing for all ages and stages”
philosophy and work with its local and regional partners on implementing a coordinated, comprehensive,
and compassionate service delivery system.
Objective(s):
• Amend zoning code to define and permit residential care facilities serving six or fewer clients in
accordance with the Community Care Facilities Act (Health and Safety Code §1502 et. seq.
• Consider ways to increase affordable, universal/accessible housing or features; publicize housing
directory; and advertise options to use the reasonable modification process.
• Support efforts to provide community support services; expand affordable/accessible transit and
community walkability in accordance with the City's transition plan.
Program 20: Farmworker Housing
Moorpark’s history is rooted in agriculture. Over time, most of the traditional field agricultural operations
in the city have been replaced by residential development, with significant agricultural operations
remaining in the county’s unincorporated areas. Developing a coherent strategy for addressing local and
regional housing needs for farmworkers has been challenging because of the lack of a reliable count of
farmworkers and lack of understanding of their need for housing. The County is leading a regional effort
to document the housing needs of farmworkers. The City seeks to participate in this countywide effort
and contribute resources to address its share of the region’s need for farmworker housing and/or services.
Objective(s):
• Amend zoning code to define and permit employee housing as a by-right use in zones allowing single-
family housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code §17021.5.
• Work with the County-led coalition to plan, fund, and implement a countywide survey of farmworkers,
employers, and housing providers to define housing conditions, needs, and barriers.
• Support and participate in the Housing Trust Fund and the creation of a dedicated source of funding
for affordable housing that will meet the needs of farmworkers.
• Use the survey results to develop targeted programs and strategies to address the verified needs of
farmworkers and to support agricultural businesses with a stable and healthy workforce.
Housing Constraints Programs
Programs to address potential housing constraints include a developer fee study, land
acquisition/consolidation/disposition program, regulatory and financial assistance, permit process audit
and revisions, and a comprehensive update to the zoning code.
159
Program 21: Developer Fee Study
Moorpark charges planning and engineering fees to recoup the cost of services provided by City staff. In
addition, development impact fees are assessed for proposed residential developments to ensure that
sufficient public services, facilities, and infrastructure are available to support that development. In some
cases, additional fees may be charged to make other needed improvements, such as underground utility
lines or off-site improvements (roads or flood control improvements) needed for a proposed project.
These types of fees and charges are common for cities throughout California and are intended to ensure
quality housing and surrounding residential neighborhoods. As part of the Housing Element update, the
Housing Plan proposes a process for City staff to initiate a review of fees charged and make revisions
needed that balance the need for full cost recovery, ensure proposed residential developments are
adequately planned for, and consider the cumulative effect on housing development.
Objective(s):
• Commence review of development-related fees to determine their appropriateness (nexus), amount
charged, and reasonableness.
• Periodically assess the cumulative impact of all fees and service charges and make revisions as needed
to achieve cost recovery and further City goals and objectives.
Program 22: Land Acquisition/Consolidation/Disposition
An effective strategy to facilitate housing is through land assemblage, consolidation, and disposition.
While the City no longer has a Redevelopment Agency, the City has acquired a number of parcels over
the years as part of normal course of business and not through eminent domain. The Successor Agency
has an inventory of parcels, subject to disposition in accordance with state law. Developers also have the
option of providing donated land in lieu of inclusionary requirements and several have agreed to do so.
Moorpark has managed its land assets and assisted in the development of affordable housing by
providing low cost/leases to organizations in return for deed-restricted affordable housing. The City
intends to continue this practice where feasible in accordance with state law requirements.
Objective(s):
• Continue to acquire, consolidate, and dispose of land in return for the production of deed-restricted
affordable housing.
• As assets are acquired, periodically release an RFQ to advertise the sale or lease of the land for long -
term deed-restricted affordable housing.
Program 23: Regulatory Assistance
Developers often face challenges in building affordable housing due to parcel size and configuration,
state and local regulatory requirements, and financing to mention a few. To mitigate these barriers, local
governments often attempt to provide regulatory and financial assistance, where feasible, to encourage
the production of affordable housing. The City’s current menu of regulatory assistance programs include
160
a state-mandated density bonus program (last revised in 2017), an administrative exception program,
and variance process among others. In addition, the City uses its RPD zone to allow for regulatory relief
from development standards to produce more creative housing projects. As part of the preparation of
the Housing Element, interviews with developers indicated a significant need for further flexibility in
residential development standards to make residential projects more feasible to build. Further review of
the municipal ordinances revealed a need to adjust several provisions of the codes.
Objective(s):
• Review and revise the City’s density bonus regulations to ensure consistency with changes in state law
(e.g., AB 2345) over the past planning period.
• Review the administrative exception ordinance and add authority to allow additional flexibility in other
specific development standards cited as potential constraints.
Program 24: Permit Process Streamlining
The City has historically used the R-P-D and Planned Development permitting process to review,
condition, and approve residential developments that are larger than four housing units. While these
application processing procedures have resulted in the successful development of more than 100
affordable housing units, the process requires a developer agreement, affordable housing agreement,
and significant delays in time. With the enactment of state legislation for expedited permit processing
and to reduce the delay in processing future projects, it has become apparent that revisions to permit
processing procedures are warranted and beneficial to the city, developers, and residents. To that end,
the City sees a need to examine, among other items, its discretionary permit processes (R-P-D and PD
permits), including its criteria, findings required, and approval authority for action. Review of other minor
permitting processes may be beneficial to provide appropriate regulatory relief.
Objective(s):
• Review and revise the R-P-D permit process to remove the threshold of five or more units, and review
and revise as needed the approving authority, criteria, and other provisions.
• Review other administrative and conditional permit processes as part of the overall update of the
zoning code following adoption of the General Plan.
Program 25: Zoning Code Update
Moorpark was incorporated in 1983 concurrent with the development of large-scale residential
subdivisions approved by Ventura County prior to incorporation. When the City incorporated, the county
codes were incorporated into the Municipal Code as a baseline. The Municipal Code has been periodically
updated on an incremental basis for various changes in state law and to address local concerns. However,
the municiapl codes have not been revised in 40 years and many provisions pre-date incorporation. With
the wave of new legislation, and with the program and land use changes envisioned through the General
Plan update, a comprehensive zoning code update is warranted.
161
Objective(s):
• Review and revise land use designations and zoning districts for consistency with and to implement
the updated General Plan.
• Identify required changes to the Municipal Code for compliance with state and federal statutes,
including building, safety, land use, and permitting requirements.
Program 26: Collaborative Partners
Collaborative partnerships are needed to facilitate the provision of affordable housing, community
services, and housing-related services. The City actively works with and partners with local organizations
and government agencies that offer housing-related services. These include the County of Ventura, Ruben
Castro Center, Area Housing Authority, affordable housing developers, and others. As the City expands
its efforts to address unmet local housing needs, it will be important to expand the depth and breadth of
collaborative partners. Additional partners will include, among others, the following: service organizations
\(Tri-County Regional Center, SCIL, etc.); Moorpark Community College; nonprofit affordable housing
developers; and housing advocacy groups serving special-needs groups. These partnerships, among
others, will help implement housing programs and further the goals and policies of the Housing Element.
Objective(s):
• Work with current housing partners and expand the breadth of collaborative partnerships to augment
existing administrative and financial resources.
Program 27: Fair Housing
The City conducted an extensive AFH (see Section 4.4) in order to identify fair housing issues, contributing
factors, and meaningful actions to address the fair housing issues in Moorpark. This effort was informed
by multiple GPAC meetings, stakeholder interviews, community workshops, and supplemental materials.
Table 4-27 summarizes the meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing.
Many of these actions are being implemented as separate programs throughout the housing element,
while others are unique for this assessment.
Objective(s):
• Implement initiatives in Table 4-27 of the housing element to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Report progress on an annual basis as part of the Annual Performance Report for the housing element.
162
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Timeframe
1. Historic
Preservation
• ComDev4
• General
Fund
• Initiate a general identification and assessment of historic
resources in the downtown to assist in determination of the
need for more formal preservation activities
• 2022
• Work with Moorpark Historical Society and other local and
regional partners to assist in identifying resources
• 2023
• Explore programs to assist the City in preserving historic
resources or older housing that is of local importance
• 2024
2. Housing
Rehab.
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Seek, apply for, and allocate funding for housing rehabilitation • Ongoing
• Extend program to include assistance for ownership units,
including mobile homes • 2023
• Seek collaborative partnership with nonprofits capable of
making home repairs • Ongoing
3. Code
Compliance
• ComDev
• General
• Fund
• Require adherence to local property regulations and
requirements • Ongoing
• Ensure that new housing meets state building codes, including
green building designs • Ongoing
• Conduct inspections of potentially substandard residences to
ensure health and safety • Ongoing
4. Capital
Improvement
Plan
• Public
Works5
• Varied
• Annually prepare and implement the CIP to improve
community infrastructure
• Annually
• Develop geographic information system (GIS)-based
pavement management system to guide street maintenance
and repair
• 2023
• Target efforts, to the extent feasible, to areas which have
experienced disinvestment
• Annually
5.
Inclusionary
Housing/Nex
us Study/Fee
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Conduct a nexus study as a prerequisite to design an
inclusionary requirement
• 2022
• Draft and adopt the inclusionary housing program and
expenditure priorities
• 2023
• Monitor program effectiveness on an annual basis • Annually
6. Affordable
Housing
Trust Fund
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Develop AHTF program parameters (priority, eligibility, and
assistance levels) • 2022
• Seek mechanism to establish, grow, and maintain the
affordable housing trust fund • 2023
• Issue RFQs for affordable housing in conjunction with the
City’s acquisition, land assemblage, and disposition program
to further City affordable housing goals and priorities
• 2024
7. Assist in • ComDev • Formalize the City’s affordable housing assistance program • 2023
4 Community Development Department
5 Public Works Department
163
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Timeframe
Development
of Affordable
Housing
• General
Fund
• Develop priority list to achieve Housing Element goals • 2024
• Seek eligible projects to provide housing assistance • As available
8. Housing
Choice
Voucher
(Section 8)
• ComDev
• Federal
funds
• Participate in the housing choice voucher program and refer
eligible households to the AHACV for rental vouchers • Ongoing
• Publicize the program through a housing resource brochure
and on the city’s website and expand outreach and education
on the state’s source of income protection (SB 329, SB 222)
• 2022
9. Home-
ownership
Assistance
• ComDev
• Funding
TBD
• Retool the homeownership program, focusing on moderately
priced single-family homes, condominiums, and townhomes • 2023
• Prioritize funding and opportunities to residents and those
working or attending educational institutions in the city • 2024
10.
Affordable
Housing
Preservation
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Periodically initiate and maintain discussions with owners of
affordable housing properties as to their needs • Ongoing
• As feasible, identify and/or offer options to maintaining the
long-term viability of the properties as affordable housing • Ongoing
• If needed, coordinate technical assistance and education to
tenants and work with owners regarding proper notification
procedures should properties become at risk of conversion
• Ongoing
11.
Downtown
Specific Plan
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and
support the introduction of residential, mixed uses, and other
land uses within the area.
• Ongoing
• Revise the design standards in the Specific Plan for consistency
with the objective development and design standards drafted
in compliance with Government Code §65913.4.
• 2024
12. Objective
Development
Design
Standards
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Prepare and adopt objective development and design
guidelines (objective zoning, subdivision, or design review
standards) in accordance with Government Code §65913
• 2024
13. Housing
Sites
Inventory
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Maintain inventory of residential sites needed to address the
2021-2029 RHNA; periodically review list of sites for
compliance with no-net-loss requirement
• Annual
• Allow by-right residential projects consistent with zoning that
offers 20% of units affordable to low-income households and
are proposed on sites from the 2014-2021 Housing Element
• As projects
are
proposed
• If housing products and affordability levels are different than
anticipated and cause a shortfall in the RHNA, redesignate
sites within 180 days to address the shortfall
14. Site
Rezoning
• ComDev
• Identify sites that will be redesignated and rezoned for
housing and/or mixed uses at the appropriate densities to
accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA
• Update
annually
164
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Timeframe
• General
Fund
• Complete rezoning/redesignation of sites to accommodate the
2021-2029 RHNA by no later than October 15, 2022 • October 15,
2022
• Complete land use element update and redesignate sites in
accordance with the general plan update • 2022
15.
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Amend zoning code to permit ADUs as a by-right use on any
lot that allows single- or multifamily housing or mixed-use
zone in accordance with Government Code §65852.2(a)
• Concurrent
w/zoning
code update
• Record progress in ADU production on the annual progress
report for the Housing Element by April 1 of each year • Annually
• Review and implement options for providing programs to
encourage ADUs, such as prototype plans, fee waivers,
expedited procedures, and affordability monitoring programs
• Annually
16.
Single-family,
Mobile
Homes, and
Mfgr Homes
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Remove the references to potentially restricting single-family
residential units designed or used exclusively to one family to
address any potential fair housing
• Concurrent
w/ update
of zoning
code • Review and, as necessary, revise provisions for mobile homes
and factory-built housing in accordance with Government
Code §65852.3 and other applicable provisions of state law
17 Homeless
Services
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Support a more robust point-in-time count of people
experiencing homelessness in the county and city to obtain
more accurate information for planning purposes
• 2022
• Amend zoning code to include parking standards for shelters
and clarify how and where transitional and supportive housing
is permitted in accordance with Gov't Code §65583 (4)(A)(ii)
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
• Amend zoning code to permit a Low-Barrier Navigation Center
by-right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential
zones permitting multifamily uses (Gov't Code §65662.)
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
18 College
Housing
Services
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Support the College’s efforts to apply for a housing planning
feasibility study; if study demonstrates a need, support college
in application for a construction grant
• 2022 and
ongoing
• Support housing initiatives to address student and faculty
needs • As projects
opportunity
arises • Assist in the development of housing attainable to this group
19. Housing
for Seniors
and Disabled
People
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Amend zoning code to define and permit residential care
facilities serving six or fewer clients in accordance with the
Health and Safety Code §1502 et. seq.
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
• Consider ways to increase affordable, universal/accessible
housing or features; publicize housing directory; and advertise
options to use the reasonable modification process
165
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Timeframe
• Support efforts to provide community support services;
expand affordable/accessible transit and community
walkability in accordance with the City’s transition plan
• Ongoing as
opportunity
arises
• same
20.
Farmworker
Housing
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Amend zoning code to define and permit employee housing as
a by-right use in zones allowing single-family housing in
accordance with Health and Safety Code §17021.
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
• Work with County-led coalition to plan, fund, and implement a
countywide survey of farmworkers, employers, and housing
providers to define housing conditions, needs, and barriers
• 2022 and
ongoing
• Use survey results to develop targeted programs and strategies
to address the verified needs of farmworkers and to support
agricultural businesses with a stable and healthy workforce
• 2022 and
ongoing
21.
Developer
Fee Study
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Review of development-related fees to determine their
appropriateness (nexus), amount charged, and reasonableness • 2022
• Periodically assess the cumulative impact of all fees and service
charges and make revisions as needed to achieve cost recovery
and further City goals and objectives
• Ongoing
22. Land
Acquisition/
Consolidatio
n/Disposition
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Continue to acquire, consolidate, and dispose of land in return
for the production of deed-restricted affordable housing • Ongoing
• As assets are acquired, periodically release an RFQ to advertise
land sale or lease for deed-restricted affordable housing • Ongoing
23.
Regulatory
Assistance
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Review and revise the City’s density bonus regulations to
ensure consistency with changes in state law (e.g., AB 2345)
over the past planning period
• Ongoing
• Review the administrative exception ordinance and add
authority to allow additional flexibility in other specific
development standards cited as potential constraints
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
24. Permit
Process
Streamlining
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Review and revise the R-P-D permit process to remove the
threshold of five or more units, and review and revise as
needed the approving authority, criteria, and other provisions
• Concurrent
with zoning
code update
• same • Review other administrative and conditional permit processes
as part of the overall update of the zoning code following
adoption of the General Plan
25. Zoning
Code Update
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Review and revise land use designations and zoning districts for
consistency with and to implement the updated General Plan • Concurrent
with zoning
code update • Identify required changes to the municipal codes for
compliance with state and federal statutes, including building,
safety, land use, and permitting requirements
166
Table 4-34 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Timeframe
26.
Collaborative
Partners
• ComDev
• General
Fund
• Work with current housing partners and expand the breadth of
collaborative partnerships to augment existing administrative
and financial resources
• Ongoing
27. Fair
Housing
• ComDev
• Gen Fund
• Implement initiatives in Table 4-27 to affirmatively further fair
housing; timing provided in each separate program above
• Report progress on an annual basis as part of the Annual
Performance Report for the housing element.
• 2021-2029
• Annually
Sources: City of Moorpark, 2021.
167
168